# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/101 "2011-03-08T20:47:01Z")
So you have no facts to back up your definition of profiling, correct? And your assumption that serial killers operate “within some kind of reasonably reachable distance” is based on logic and human nature, not research of the subject. Is that also correct? ---
**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 8, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/102 "2011-03-08T20:49:40Z")
Really? Stating that a serial killer has to be able to physically get to his crimes from where he lives is a “definition dodge?” you guys need a profiler to tell you that? You can’t figure it out on your own. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/103 "2011-03-08T20:50:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Same deal here. Any insight a profiler offers is either “common sense” or bunk. I don’t agree that it’s self-evident that killers’ dump sites decrease in distance from their residences over time, but that’s what Canter and Godwin’s study says. Once told that this happens, it sorta makes sense - after all, when serial killers start killing, they are (probably) more likely to be ultra-cautious about being caught, and so go through great efforts to commit their crimes far from home - but as time goes by and they are not caught, they are more likely to grow lazy. ---
**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 8, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/104 "2011-03-08T20:52:37Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > So you have no facts to back up your definition of profiling, correct? > **[Offender profiling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offender_profiling#Definitions)** > > Offender profiling, also known as criminal profiling, is an investigative strategy used by law enforcement agencies to identify likely suspects and has been used by investigators to link cases that may have been committed by the same perpetrator. > There are multiple approaches to offender profiling, including the FBI’s typological method, geographic profiling, and investigative psychology, each utilizing different techniques to analyze offender behavior. Profiling is primarily applied in cases... > [@](#): > > And your assumption that serial killers operate “within some kind of reasonably reachable distance” is based on logic and human nature, not research of the subject. Is that also correct? It’s based on physics. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/105 "2011-03-09T00:01:26Z")
What does physics have to do with human nature \_ and warped human nature at that? It’s possible that certain types of killers only act when they’re far away from their homes and feel confident the crime will never be connected to them. You’re deciding what seems logical to you and then declaring that this must be the way the world works. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong, but it’s definitely not based on any deep knowledge of how profiling works. As for the Wikipedia definition you linked to, it splits the subject into two categories: offender profiling and psychological profiling. Does your claim of zero value apply to both types of profiling or just one? Please explain your reasoning. ---
**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, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/106 "2011-03-09T00:16:48Z")
“Physically proximate” to their crimes doesn’t imply that the distance will decrease as time goes on, does it? Neither do the laws of “physics,” right? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/107 "2011-03-09T01:08:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It would depend on what was being studied, how representaive the sample was, and how rigorously it was controlled. I am confident that no study of serial killers exists which has yielded sufficient data to be able to make statistically reliable predictions about personalities and demographics..i.e. personally identifiable traits outside of the crimes themselves. /me wanders about with a lantern before him. “I am seeking an honest goalpost.” ---
**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, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/108 "2011-03-09T02:13:26Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > What does physics have to do with human nature \_ and warped human nature at that? It has to do with the killer needing to be able to physically get to the location of the crime. It’s _probable_ (not certain) that the killer will live within some kind of reasonable proximity to the crimes (i.e. driving distance). A bunch of crimes committed in the Bay area of California are _probably_ not living in Bangor Maine. > [@](#): > > It’s possible that certain types of killers only act when they’re far away from their homes and feel confident the crime will never be connected to them. Exactly. That’s why even this kind of limited excuse for profiling is useless and has no reliably predicative value. ---
**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, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/109 "2011-03-09T02:15:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Physically proximate” to their crimes doesn’t imply that the distance will decrease as time goes on, does it? > > Neither do the laws of “physics,” right? Criminal profiling cannot predict that this will happen with any reliability. ---
**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, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/110 "2011-03-09T02:16:50Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > /me wanders about with a lantern before him. “I am seeking an honest goalpost.” Stating what is required to make a study scientifically valid is “moving goalposts?” ---
**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, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/111 "2011-03-09T02:17:51Z")
Still waiting to see a single crime that was ever solved by criminal profiling. I’m sure it can’t be for lack of Googling. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/112 "2011-03-09T02:46:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Physically proximate” to their crimes doesn’t imply that the distance will decrease as time goes on, does it? > > Neither do the laws of “physics,” right? No, but the laws of economics do. Having been successful previously at weighing outcomes for the binary outcome of caught or not caught, it’s “common sense” that the killer will decrease his effort in choosing a dumping ground provided that his previous choices have been successful. He is seeking to minimize effort for reward. Unfortunately for him, he may underestimate the consequences of failure during this optimization effort. I agree with you: This is becoming an argument about definitions. What separates profiling from normal investigative techniques? ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/113 "2011-03-09T03:23:49Z")
**Diogenes** has not yet explained what research he did before concluding the profiling has _never_ solved a crime. Nor has he said whether his conclusion applies to “offender” profiling, “psychological” profiling or both, and he hasn’t explained his reasoning. Nor has he explained what studies he reviewed to conclude that killers operate near their homes. In fact, he hasn’t done anything but make assertions without offering a shred of proof or even an explanation. Some debate. ---
**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, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/114 "2011-03-09T03:25:16Z")
You don’t understand burden of proof. Prove a smurf has never solved a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/115 "2011-03-09T03:52:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You don’t understand burden of proof. Prove a smurf has never solved a crime. :dubious: Easy. Smurfs are "[small blue fictional creatures"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smurfs). Fictional creatures can not solve real crimes. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/116 "2011-03-09T04:01:00Z")
Oh, goodie! All I ever have to do is make a negative claim, and I can never be expected to support that claim! I win automatically! Yay me! :rolleyes: ---
**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, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/117 "2011-03-09T04:04:36Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > :dubious: > > Easy. Smurfs are "[small blue fictional creatures"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smurfs). Fictional creatures can not solve real crimes. > > QED. And criminal profiling cannot solve a crime because it’s bunk with no predicative power or investigative utility. ---
**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, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/118 "2011-03-09T04:06:55Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Oh, goodie! All I ever have to do is make a negative claim, and I can never be expected to support that claim! I win automatically! Yay me! > > :rolleyes: I’m making a claim based on the knowledge that an alleged technique has no scientific validity or utility. I know it hasn’t solved any crimes becauseI know it CAN’T solve any crimes. I’m still waiting to be proven wrong, by the way. It should be fucking child’s play. Why can’t anybody do it? ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/119 "2011-03-09T04:11:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m making a claim based on the knowledge that an alleged technique has no scientific validity or utility. I know it hasn’t solved any crimes becauseI know it CAN’T solve any crimes. > > I’m still waiting to be proven wrong, by the way. It should be fucking child’s play. Why can’t anybody do it? I couldn’t give two shits about profiling. I neither know nor care whether it can solve crimes. I just wonder what else you do with your time besides being pointlessly argumentative. ---
**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, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/120 "2011-03-09T04:12:48Z")
I didn’t start the argument. Just stated a fact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=7)