# 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:** 7
**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, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/121 "2011-03-09T04:17:55Z")
You stated an opinion and called it a fact. When asked to explain how you reached your conclusion, you started repeating “can’t prove a negative, can’t prove a negative.” How about you describe the careful research and long hours of reading you spent developing your views on this subject? Or failing that, just admit that you have a gut opinion but nothing to back it up. (It’s not a moral failing to have an opinion. Just call it what it is.) ---
**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, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/122 "2011-03-09T04:21:44Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > You stated an opinion and called it a fact. When asked to explain how you reached your conclusion, you started repeating “can’t prove a negative, can’t prove a negative.” > > How about you describe the careful research and long hours of reading you spent developing your views on this subject? Or failing that, just admit that you have a gut opinion but nothing to back it up. (It’s not a moral failing to have an opinion. Just call it what it is.) It’ll never happen, of course. The OP has been answered long ago. All that’s left is Dio huffing and puffing. That’s likely to last a while. ---
**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, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/123 "2011-03-09T04:31:17Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > You stated an opinion and called it a fact. No I didn’t. I made a factual observation. ---
**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, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/124 "2011-03-09T04:32:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No I didn’t. I made a factual observation. In your opinion. ---
**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, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/125 "2011-03-09T04:35:55Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > It’ll never happen, of course. The OP has been answered long ago. All that’s left is Dio huffing and puffing. That’s likely to last a while. That’s up to you guys. You’re the ones trying to pick a fight. You want another cite besides the fact that profiling has been already demonstrated in this thread to be of no scientific utility? Here’s one - no one here has been able to find a case where it solved a crime. Show me a cite that voodoo has never solved a crime. That’s basically what you’re asking me to do. I don’t need to cite that the impossible is impossible. ---
**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, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/126 "2011-03-09T04:38:07Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > In your opinion. It’s a factual claim. It can be either correct or incorrect, but it can’t be an opinion. As it happens, I am correct, though. ---
**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, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/127 "2011-03-09T04:48:57Z")
I just want to learn from you. You must have done research before concluding that psychological profiling is the equivalent of voodoo. You must have a background in criminology to know that no case has ever been solved through profiling. So, please, fill me in on what you learned. Point me to the articles I should read or the scholars who have written the key books. ---
**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, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/128 "2011-03-09T04:54:43Z")
It doesn’t require a background in criminology, just a basic ability to understand that the statements made by profilers have no probative value. Read Gladwell’s article. It’s linked upthread. Profiling is bunk. Statements like “he’s either never been married, is married or is divorced” is not a statement that imparts any information. ---
**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, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/129 "2011-03-09T05:05:35Z")
OK. I have a life and I don’t want to be accused of harassing you, so I’ll drop it. But it should be clear to you, as it is to everyone else, that you were given chance after chance to explain your reasoning, point to cites that support you, and define your position by discussing hypotheticals \_ but you utterly and completely failed to debate. ---
**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, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/130 "2011-03-09T05:14:54Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > OK. I have a life and I don’t want to be accused of harassing you, so I’ll drop it. But it should be clear to you, as it is to everyone else, that you were given chance after chance to explain your reasoning, point to cites that support you, and define your position by discussing hypotheticals \_ but you utterly and completely failed to debate. Did you read the link to Gladwell’s article in post #5 that **Dio** is talking about? ---
**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, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/131 "2011-03-09T05:33:48Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > OK. I have a life and I don’t want to be accused of harassing you, so I’ll drop it. But it should be clear to you, as it is to everyone else, that you were given chance after chance to explain your reasoning, point to cites that support you, and define your position by discussing hypotheticals \_ but you utterly and completely failed to debate. The OP was based on an article which is linked in this thread. The basis of my reasoning is contained within that article (well, not just there, I’ve read about the inefficacy of profiling before, but the article pretty clearly explains the reasons for my conclusions). ---
**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, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/132 "2011-03-09T05:49:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And criminal profiling cannot solve a crime because it’s bunk with no predicative power or investigative utility. Then provide a reference. I provided the reference you asked for within minutes. Why can’t you do the same for me? ---
**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, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/133 "2011-03-09T05:50:27Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Then provide a reference. > > I provided the reference you asked for within minutes. Why can’t you do the same for me? Post #5. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/134 "2011-03-09T05:51:35Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > I don’t place criminal profiling on the same level as astrology- rather, I think profiling by a competent psychologist can provide some useful guidelines. > > ALL of us “profile,” and in many professions, that’s a useful skill. A salesman learns from experience how to tell the people who are really looking to buy from those who are just browsing, a waitress learns to tell which patrons will tip more if she flirts a little, a criminal lawyer learns to tell which witnesses he needs to badger and which ones he needs to charm. There are certain traits, cues and signals we all give off and people judge us (“profile” us) on them all the time. > > That CAN be a useful tool. The problem comes when we get too enamored of our own cleverness, and when we start to think of useful generalities as hard science. > > It may be useful to know that 94% of serial arsonists are white males in their twenties (psst- I made that up! I have no idea what the actual percentage is!)… but if all the tangible evidence points to a Hispanic female in her Fifties, it would be STUPID to rule her out as a suspect just because she doesn’t fit a profile. But that DOES happen. To use an example I’ve used before, the Beltway Snipers eluded capture in part because law enforcement was wedded to the notion that the killer was a white loner, whcih meant no one paid attention to a suspicious looking pair of black men. In the [Virginia Tech Report](http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techPanelReport-docs/11%20CHAPTER%20VII%20DOUBLE%20MURDER%20AT%20WAJ%20Hall%20.pdf): > [@](#): > > It was reasonable albeit wrong that the VTPD thought this double murder was most likely the result of a domestic argument, given the facts they had initially, including the knowledge that the last person known to have been with the female victim was her boyfriend who owned a gun and cared greatly for her, according to police interviews, plus the fact that she was shot with a young man in her room under the circumstances found. The report goes on to say that in the past 40 years there was no crime where a first shooting was followed by a second shooting on campus. > [@astorian](#): > > A profile may be useful to cops who already have some leads, evidence and suspects. But it’s foolish and dangerous to START with a profile and then try to make the evidence and suspects fit that profile. But it’s wise, calculating, and dangerous to START with a profile - when you’re the profile. “The profile doesn’t fit the profile!” - _Murder By Numbers_ Interesting thing about Cho Seung Hui was that he took a course called Deviant Behavior from the Sociology Department, and the class met in Norris Hall. This was overlooked in the initial reporting; however, it was [reported](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501221.html) by _The Washington Post_. Looks like he had a background in criminology. All of us profile (he was a stalker before he was a killer) and I guess he found it a useful skill. ---
**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, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/135 "2011-03-09T06:07:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Did you read the link to Gladwell’s article in post #5 that **Dio** is talking about? Yes. Why do you ask? Dio read that article and it inspired him to start a thread _asking_ whether profiling is woo. A few posts later and he is flatly stating that profiling has no value and has never contributed to solving a case. Clearly the article itself isn’t his only reason for that conclusion or he would have said so in the OP. (Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that I’m defending profiling. I know nothing about it and have no opinion. I’m trying to figure out why Dio suddenly grew so darn certain.) ---
**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, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/136 "2011-03-09T06:11:20Z")
I know what is influencing _my_ ideas on the subject-the fact that I can’t seem to find a single case of a successful profile, outside of unverified claims of the profilers themselves. I can find untold numbers of stories of profilers either stating the obvious or getting it wrong, but not much in evidence on the other side of the scale. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/137 "2011-03-09T06:18:06Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > (Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that I’m defending profiling. I know nothing about it and have no opinion. I’m trying to figure out why Dio suddenly grew so darn certain.) Is this thread about Dio or is it about the efficacy of criminal profiling? And why shouldn’t Dio be certain? After all, nobody has been able to produce a single case where profiling has led to the capture of a suspect whose identity was unknown. Odesio ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/138 "2011-03-09T06:25:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about the additional insight that, as time goes on, the distance between the dumping point and the offender’s residence decreases. Is that also common sense? In fact, I think it’s at least very logical. Common sense maybe not, since it’s not so obvious that it would be the first idea to come to your mind, but logical enough for someone involved in the enquiry (and who isn’t a profiler) to envision it. ---
**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, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/139 "2011-03-09T06:34:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Post #5. So your reason for believing that the article is correct when it says that profiling is woo and can’t solve cases, is the same article saying that profiling is woo and can’t solve cases. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/140 "2011-03-09T06:38:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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). And it’s probable that the Virginia Tech killer will be a student at Virginia Tech, even though the initial suspect was a student at Radford University. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Exactly. That’s why even this kind of limited excuse for profiling is useless and has no reliably predicative value. It would not have been useless after the double murder at Virginia Tech. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=8)