# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/161 "2011-03-09T16:09:29Z")
> [@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? The problem is knowing enough about the investigation and the ways the crime was solved to be able to difinitively state that the crime was, or was not, solved by profiling. Heck, I gave an example ages ago in this thread of a crime which the FBI allegedly claimed was solved by profiling, but sadly the actual details of the investigation available to internet-based amateurs are sketchy at best, so that claim could not really be evaluated with any clarity one way or another. We simply lack inside police expertise and knowledge of how individual cases are solved. Lacking actual data, this argument is (as we have seen) a sort of pointless exercise, somewhat reminisent of a Monty Python sketch. Though I’m inclined to agree with the premise that profiling is often similar to cold-reading (albeit I suspect not a deliberate exercise in deception - more akin to investigators fooling themselves), data to investigate the matter one way or the other lacks. That’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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/162 "2011-03-09T16:14:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The problem is knowing enough about the investigation and the ways the crime was solved to be able to difinitively state that the crime was, or was not, solved by profiling. > > Heck, I gave an example ages ago in this thread of a crime which the FBI allegedly claimed was solved by profiling, but sadly the actual details of the investigation available to internet-based amateurs are sketchy at best, so that claim could not really be evaluated with any clarity one way or another. > > We simply lack inside police expertise and knowledge of how individual cases are solved. Lacking actual data, this argument is (as we have seen) a sort of pointless exercise, somewhat reminisent of a Monty Python sketch. Though I’m inclined to agree with the premise that profiling is often similar to cold-reading (albeit I suspect not a deliberate exercise in deception - more akin to investigators fooling themselves), data to investigate the matter one way or the other lacks. > > That’s the holdup. Why can’t someone just post a profile that supposedly was instrumental in solving a case so we can have a looksee? ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/163 "2011-03-09T16:15:24Z")
It doesn’t require investigative exertise to be able to recognize cold reading when you see it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/164 "2011-03-09T16:19:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why can’t someone just post a profile that supposedly was instrumental in solving a case so we can have a looksee? I for one have no idea where to go about finding “profiles”. I’m certainly interested in reading one, though. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/165 "2011-03-09T16:19:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There was no emprical basis for saying the shooter had to be a student. The shooter graduated from high school, applied, was admitted, and enrolled at Virginia Tech. He could very well have written, under the question, Why do you want to go to Virginia Tech?, “So I can commit the deadliest college shooting before committing suicide. I’ll need four years to plan and, while I won’t be able graduate, it’ll be worth it.” ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/166 "2011-03-09T16:26:57Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > 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. The Gladwell article linked on the first page describes a scene of three FBI profilers (includingJohn Douglas, who is one of the pioneers of this technique and whose book I have read) spitballing about the BTK killer. It’s pretty clear they’re just talking out of their asses: > [@](#): > > They had been at it for almost six hours. The best minds in the F.B.I. had given the Wichita detectives a blueprint for their investigation. Look for an American male with a possible connection to the military. His I.Q. will be above 105. He will like to masturbate, and will be aloof and selfish in bed. He will drive a decent car. He will be a “now” person. He won’t be comfortable with women. But he may have women friends. He will be a lone wolf. But he will be able to function in social settings. He won’t be unmemorable. But he will be unknowable. He will be either never married, divorced, or married, and if he was or is married his wife will be younger or older. He may or may not live in a rental, and might be lower class, upper lower class, lower middle class or middle class. And he will be crazy like a fox, as opposed to being mental. If you’re keeping score, that’s a Jacques Statement, two Barnum Statements, four Rainbow Ruses, a Good Chance Guess, two predictions that aren’t really predictions because they could never be verified—and nothing even close to the salient fact that BTK was a pillar of his community, the president of his church and the married father of two. The entire converstaion does sound like something out of the TV show, _Criminal Minds_, but a lot less specific. ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/167 "2011-03-09T16:29:28Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > The shooter graduated from high school, applied, was admitted, and enrolled at Virginia Tech. He could very well have written, under the question, Why do you want to go to Virginia Tech?, “So I can commit the deadliest college shooting before committing suicide. I’ll need four years to plan and, while I won’t be able graduate, it’ll be worth it.” I don’t understand what you think this means. Were talking about suspects whose identity is still _unknown_. If all you know is that a guy shot up a school, you can’t conclude that he was necessarily a student, even if the profile predicts it. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/168 "2011-03-09T16:36:18Z")
I am not at all expert in forensic psychology or criminal profiling. However, this problem should be no more or less difficult to resolve than any other activity in psychological research. I did a PsycInfo search on “criminal profiling,” and came up with a total of 274 articles. This tells me off the bat that not a lot of research has been done on this specific topic. A cursory review of the references indicated that many of the publications were either books, book chapters or book reviews, a bad sign, since these are not peer reviewed publications and often do not include new empirical analyses. Furthermore, one researcher’s name in particular showed up repeatedly, another bad sign regarding the state of the literature. It may be possible that searching on another term might reveal another more well-developed segment of the literature, but I did not want to invest the time to do so. Instead, I tried to find recent review articles to get an impression of the current state of things, and most of what I found was consistent with the following two articles, which I found through google scholar. I have quoted the abstracts of the articles below. Brent Snook, Richard M. Cullen, Craig Bennell, Paul J. Taylor and Paul Gendreau The Criminal Profiling Illusion : What’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors? Criminal Justice and Behavior 2008 35: 1257 DOI: 10.1177/0093854808321528 > [@](#): > > There is a belief that criminal profilers can predict a criminal’s characteristics from crime scene evidence. In this article, the authors argue that this belief may be an illusion and explain how people may have been misled into believing that criminal profiling (CP) works despite no sound theoretical grounding and no strong empirical support for this possibility. Potentially responsible for this illusory belief is the information that people acquire about CP, which is heavily influenced by anecdotes, repetition of the message that profiling works, the expert profiler label, and a disproportionate emphasis on correct predictions. Also potentially responsible are aspects of information processing such as reasoning errors, creating meaning out of ambiguous information, imitating good ideas, and inferring fact from fiction. The authors conclude that CP should not be used as an investigative tool because it lacks scientific support. The online version of this article can be found at: [http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1257](http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1257) Christopher Devery Criminal Profiling and Criminal Investigation Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 2010 26: 393 DOI: 10.1177/1043986210377108 > [@](#): > > 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. The online version of this article can be found at: [http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/26/4/393](http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/26/4/393) Again, this is not a thorough review, but a cursory scan through the literature. My impression based on this is that little to no empirical evidence exists to support any accuracy or validity for criminal profiling. ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/169 "2011-03-09T16:37:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In what way that would satisfy you could he prove himself correct? That’s his problem. Personally, I’m open to being convinced either way. The problem is that he has flatly stated that profiling has NEVER been useful, when it’s pretty clear that he is in no position to evaluate such a statement. If you want though, we can start with an explanation of the methodology that he used to arrive at his conclusion. We can then determine if one can safely conclude that profiling has NEVER – not even once – been instrumental in solving a crime. **Diogenes** claims to have arrived at this rigorous and extreme conclusion. It’s up to him to present his work. It’s not up to us to explain how he could justify his conclusion. Heck, for all you know, he might surprise us with the brilliance and innovativeness of his detective work. I’m willing to wait for that. ---
**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, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/170 "2011-03-09T16:40:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Why can’t someone just post a profile that supposedly was instrumental in solving a case so we can have a looksee? Again, you’re treating this whole issue as though **Diogenes** should be considered right until he is proven wrong. Logic doesn’t work that way, and I think you know that. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/171 "2011-03-09T16:42:59Z")
I am absolutely right and you know it. That’s what’s driving you so crazy. My cite is the undisputed fact that the discipline has no real scientific grounding, that it’s indistingushible from cold reading, and that no one can find a case where it ever solved a crime. ---
**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, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/172 "2011-03-09T16:44:06Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I am not at all expert in forensic psychology or criminal profiling. However, this problem should be no more or less difficult to resolve than any other activity in psychological research. > > I did a PsycInfo search on “criminal profiling,” and came up with a total of 274 articles. This tells me off the bat that not a lot of research has been done on this specific topic. A cursory review of the references indicated that many of the publications were either books, book chapters or book reviews, a bad sign, since these are not peer reviewed publications and often do not include new empirical analyses. Furthermore, one researcher’s name in particular showed up repeatedly, another bad sign regarding the state of the literature. > > It may be possible that searching on another term might reveal another more well-developed segment of the literature, but I did not want to invest the time to do so. > > Instead, I tried to find recent review articles to get an impression of the current state of things, and most of what I found was consistent with the following two articles, which I found through google scholar. I have quoted the abstracts of the articles below. > > Brent Snook, Richard M. Cullen, Craig Bennell, Paul J. Taylor and Paul Gendreau > The Criminal Profiling Illusion : What’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors? > Criminal Justice and Behavior 2008 35: 1257 > DOI: 10.1177/0093854808321528 > > The online version of this article can be found at: > [http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1257](http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1257) > Christopher Devery > Criminal Profiling and Criminal Investigation > Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 2010 26: 393 > DOI: 10.1177/1043986210377108 > > The online version of this article can be found at: > [http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/26/4/393](http://ccj.sagepub.com/content/26/4/393) > > Again, this is not a thorough review, but a cursory scan through the literature. My impression based on this is that little to no empirical evidence exists to support any accuracy or validity for criminal profiling. Thanks for this. ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/173 "2011-03-09T16:45:42Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Again, you’re treating this whole issue as though **Diogenes** should be considered right until he is proven wrong. Logic doesn’t work that way, and I think you know that. No-I’m treating this whole issue as though it was about the accuracy of criminal profiling. The fact that so far, according to the sources supplied to date, he seems to be correct is beside the point. If your problem is that it is **Dio** holding this viewpoint, then I am not the one off-topic. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/174 "2011-03-09T16:47:33Z")
By the way, I agree that most profilers are probably not being deliberately deceptive, just self-deluded. ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/175 "2011-03-09T16:48:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t understand what you think this means. Were talking about suspects whose identity is still _unknown_. If all you know is that a guy shot up a school, you can’t conclude that he was necessarily a student, even if the profile predicts it. Comparing the Beltway sniper attacks to the Virginia Tech massacre: > [@astorian](#): > > 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. [QUOTE=Virginia Tech Report] 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. [/QUOTE] In the Beltway sniper attacks, they could have stopped them if they realized the profile might be wrong. In the Virginia Tech massacre, they could have prevented the second shooting if they realized that the first shooting was only made to look like a domestic argument. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/176 "2011-03-09T16:50:43Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That’s his problem. Personally, I’m open to being convinced either way. The problem is that he has flatly stated that profiling has NEVER been useful, when it’s pretty clear that he is in no position to evaluate such a statement. > > If you want though, we can start with an explanation of the methodology that he used to arrive at his conclusion. We can then determine if one can safely conclude that profiling has NEVER – not even once – been instrumental in solving a crime. > > **Diogenes** claims to have arrived at this rigorous and extreme conclusion. It’s up to him to present his work. It’s not up to us to explain how he could justify his conclusion. Heck, for all you know, he might surprise us with the brilliance and innovativeness of his detective work. I’m willing to wait for that. How much “work” would convince you? Without a goal in mind, why would anyone bother? On the other hand, if someone could come up with just one profile that was instrumental in solving a case, he could be proved wrong. Logic tells us which is the simpler task to accomplish…and reason tells us why you choose the other path. ---
**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, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/177 "2011-03-09T16:52:14Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Comparing the Beltway sniper attacks to the Virginia Tech massacre: > > In the Beltway sniper attacks, they could have stopped them if they realized the profile might be wrong. In the Virginia Tech massacre, they could have prevented the second shooting if they realized that the first shooting was only made to look like a domestic argument. OK. I see where you’re coming from. I guess I’m getting too defensive. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/178 "2011-03-09T17:40:48Z")
Sure, Dio didn’t do the work, but in his defense, I’d say the quotes in post #168 that Hentor dug up strongly support his position (and mine, BTW). One’s a Cynic, one’s a Barbarian. There’s gotta be a sitcom theme in there somewhere. 🙂 ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/179 "2011-03-09T17:58:23Z")
> [@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? 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. ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/180 "2011-03-09T17:59:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Which crimes did they solve using this research? What do you mean by “solve?” Be specific. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=10)