# 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:** 8
**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, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/141 "2011-03-09T06:49:07Z")
Yes it would. There was no emprical basis for saying the shooter had to be a student. ---
**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, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/142 "2011-03-09T07:11:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. “He’s either going to (1) kill two students and flee the crime scene or he’s going to (2) kill two students and return to the crime scene and kill more students or he’s going to (3) kill two students and kill more students at a different location.” From the [Virginia Tech Report](http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techPanelReport-docs/11%20CHAPTER%20VII%20DOUBLE%20MURDER%20AT%20WAJ%20Hall%20.pdf): > [@](#): > > The VTPD had the probabilities correct, but needed to consider the low-probability side as well as the most likely situation. The most likely situation was (1) and the low-probability situation was (3). ---
**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, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/143 "2011-03-09T07:13:56Z")
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. That basically makes my point for me. Profiling is worthless bullshit that doesn’t solve crimes. Profiling had nothing to do with catching the VT shooter. ---
**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, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/144 "2011-03-09T07:17:15Z")
I’m not trying to make a point. ---
**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, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/145 "2011-03-09T07:17:48Z")
Ok then. ---
**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, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/146 "2011-03-09T07:26:07Z")
However, **astorian** is, and it’s a good point. ---
**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, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/147 "2011-03-09T12:11:57Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > 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: No. My reasoning for leaning in the direction I do is told in my previous post, which doesn’t need to be reworded by you to say something I didn’t say, or even imply. Edited to add: If you wish to debate what _I_ say, please do. If on the other hand you wish to debate what _you_ say, well…enjoy yourself, I guess. ---
**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, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/148 "2011-03-09T14:06:17Z")
> [@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? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Criminal profiling cannot predict that this will happen with any reliability. I have cited a study that says otherwise. > [@clairobscur](#): > > 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. Fascinating, and the opposite claim that **Diogenes** makes above. Perhaps you two should talk. ---
**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, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/149 "2011-03-09T14:14:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have cited a study that says otherwise. Where? You mentioned a study, but didn’t link to it, didn’t say what it showed, what the methodology was or anything else. That’s not a cite. ---
**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, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/150 "2011-03-09T14:46:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Where? You mentioned a study, but didn’t link to it, didn’t say what it showed, what the methodology was or anything else. That’s not a cite. Immaterial. You have not provided any evidence either. **Bricker** ’s claim is exactly as supported as yours is. ---
**Author:** ![Lionne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Lionne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lionne)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/151 "2011-03-09T14:49:23Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > 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. Dio has every right to be certain. All people are looking for is the research and reasoning he’s used to become so certain. ---
**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, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/152 "2011-03-09T14:53:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Where? You mentioned a study, but didn’t link to it, didn’t say what it showed, what the methodology was or anything else. That’s not a cite. OK… although I’d point out that you haven’t even done that… that is, you’ve presented no evidence at all. In the study, Godwin and Canter compiled the case notes from 54 U.S. serial killers, each of whom had killed at least 10 times. Specifically, they graphed the spatial relationship between the offender’s residence and the locations at which the bodies were dumped, and then added the locations at which the victims were first abducted. The following predictions emerged from their analysis: [ul] [li]The victims were encountered relatively close to the killers’ residences[/li][li]The bodies were dumped some distance away, in different, random directions[/li][li]The distance from the residence to the spot of first encounter increased over time - the first victim was closer to the killer’s home when abducted than the fifth victim was, and more so for the tenth, and so on[/li][li]The distance from the residence to the body’s dumping ground decreased over time - the first victim was dumped farther from the killer’s home than the fifth victim was, and more so for the tenth, and so on[/li][/ul] They gleaned information from interviews with the offenders, and then validated that information against the police reports in each murder case. They applied regression analysis to the data collected and saw consistent behavior from case to case. ---
**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, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/153 "2011-03-09T15:31:11Z")
> [@Lionne](#): > > Dio has every right to be certain. All people are looking for is the research and reasoning he’s used to become so certain. All the needed research is in the linked article. Profiling is cold reading. It also still remains a fact that no one has been able to cite an example of profiling solving a crime. Woo doesn’t work. I don’t need to do research in order to say that with confidence. ---
**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, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/154 "2011-03-09T15:34:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK… although I’d point out that you haven’t even done that… that is, you’ve presented no evidence at all. > > In the study, Godwin and Canter compiled the case notes from 54 U.S. serial killers, each of whom had killed at least 10 times. Specifically, they graphed the spatial relationship between the offender’s residence and the locations at which the bodies were dumped, and then added the locations at which the victims were first abducted. > > The following predictions emerged from their analysis: > > [ul] > [li]The victims were encountered relatively close to the killers’ residences[/li][li]The bodies were dumped some distance away, in different, random directions[/li][li]The distance from the residence to the spot of first encounter increased over time - the first victim was closer to the killer’s home when abducted than the fifth victim was, and more so for the tenth, and so on[/li][li]The distance from the residence to the body’s dumping ground decreased over time - the first victim was dumped farther from the killer’s home than the fifth victim was, and more so for the tenth, and so on[/li][/ul] > > They gleaned information from interviews with the offenders, and then validated that information against the police reports in each murder case. They applied regression analysis to the data collected and saw consistent behavior from case to case. That’s too small a sample to yield statsitically significant results, and unless _100%_ of them followed this pattern, it has no predicative value for individualized cases. Were the numbers 100%? If not, then this study has no utility because it can’t predict that any individual suspect will necessarily follow this pattern It’s also not psychological profiling since it says nothing about the personality or identity of the specific killer, but just presents a generalization about serial killers as a whole. So no, whatever gotchya ya case you’re waiting to spring on me will not be an example of criminal profiling solving a case. Profiling is bunk. ---
**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, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/155 "2011-03-09T15:35:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > All the needed research is in the linked article. Profiling is cold reading. It also still remains a fact that no one has been able to cite an example of profiling solving a crime. Woo doesn’t work. I don’t need to do research in order to say that with confidence. Sorry. I don’t know anything about profiling, but I know you are absolutely incorrect. It’s a fact, because I said so. I win! ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/156 "2011-03-09T15:39:13Z")
It would be really easy to prove me wrong. I should be a sitting duck with this. All anybody needs to do is show one case of profiling soving a crime. What’s the holdup? ---
**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, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/157 "2011-03-09T15:41:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK… although I’d point out that you haven’t even done that… that is, you’ve presented no evidence at all. > > In the study, Godwin and Canter compiled the case notes from 54 U.S. serial killers, each of whom had killed at least 10 times. Specifically, they graphed the spatial relationship between the offender’s residence and the locations at which the bodies were dumped, and then added the locations at which the victims were first abducted. > > The following predictions emerged from their analysis: > > [ul] > [li]The victims were encountered relatively close to the killers’ residences[/li][li]The bodies were dumped some distance away, in different, random directions[/li][li]The distance from the residence to the spot of first encounter increased over time - the first victim was closer to the killer’s home when abducted than the fifth victim was, and more so for the tenth, and so on[/li][li]The distance from the residence to the body’s dumping ground decreased over time - the first victim was dumped farther from the killer’s home than the fifth victim was, and more so for the tenth, and so on[/li][/ul] > > They gleaned information from interviews with the offenders, and then validated that information against the police reports in each murder case. They applied regression analysis to the data collected and saw consistent behavior from case to case. Which crimes did they solve using this research? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/158 "2011-03-09T15:49:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It would be really easy to prove me wrong. I should be a sitting duck with this. All anybody needs to do is show one case of profiling soving a crime. What’s the holdup? Personally – and I’ve said this several times now – I’m not trying to prove you wrong. Rather, I’m asking you to prove yourself to be correct. Declaring “Because I know this to be true” doesn’t cut it, especially when it comes to the extreme claim that profiling is NEVER, EVER helpful. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/159 "2011-03-09T15:51:14Z")
Since I can’t and don’t claim ANY type of expertise on this subject, let me ask- what does “profiling” mean to the actual, flesh and blood FBI agents who do it? Most of us laymen know little about the practice, other than what we read in cheesey Thomas Harris novels or see on “Criminal Minds.” IF real FBI profilers were like Will Graham (getting into the minds of killers, learning to think like mass murderers), then “woo” would be exactly the right word. Heck, even in “Red Dragon,” Graham’s uncanny ability to think like a psychopath didn’t lead to the Tooth Fairy’s capture! Rather, Graham caught the Tooth Fairy by figuring out that the killer must have worked for the company that processed the victims’ home movies. THAT’S something any agent or cop could have figured out! It’s something Graham MIGHT have figured out sooner if he’d spent more time on the tangible evidence and less trying to get inside Francis Dolarhyde’s twisted fantasies. But my guess is that REAL profilers aren’t anything like Will Graham. More likely, they study violent crimes in depth and look for patterns and commonalities among the people who commit them. Does that kind of study yield results that are of genuine benefit in solving cases? I don’t know- but that is NOT “woo,” it’s a plausible approach, one worthy of further study. If the FBI determines, after exhaustive study, that one particular type of person (by age, ethnicity, race, personality type, whatever) is overwhelmingly responsible for a certain type of crime, that MAY be worth knowing. Or it may just give us an overly broad, overly general group of suspects, which does investigators no good at all. Obviously, if experience shows that profiling is worthless, by all means dump it. But don’t dismiss it out of hand, just because the concept rubs you the wrong way. ---
**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, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/160 "2011-03-09T15:54:53Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Personally – and I’ve said this several times now – I’m not trying to prove you wrong. Rather, I’m asking you to prove yourself to be correct. Declaring “Because I know this to be true” doesn’t cut it, especially when it comes to the extreme claim that profiling is NEVER, EVER helpful. In what way that would satisfy you could he prove himself correct? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=9)