[Merged] FBI Profilers just like "psychics"

Deus Ex Machina

Critical Thinker
Deus Ex Machina
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
495
IN todays WSJ there is small article in the "B" section credited to The New Yorker which says that a study done by the University of Liverpool shows that the famed profilers are pretty much in the same league as psychics. Vague statements which can be interpreted in many contradictory ways and emphasizing hits and ignoring the more numerous misses.
 
I've thought that for a long time. Profilers always struck me as little more than someone doing cold reading.
 
I've often wondered about that too. When they're after a serial killer and the profiler says it's likely to be a single white man in his mid-30s, does that mean they won't follow up on leads for suspects that don't fit the profile?

If they don't, it's outrageous, and if they do, it belies the value of the profiler's input.
 
Watching Court TV's programs I've come to the conclusion that Dayle Hinneman (sp?) is basically useless. I don't know if it's true, a function of their production, or just my cynicism, but every time she says something like "the victim was killed in the open, this killer didn't fear being caught" or "there was no sign of forced entry, it seems the victim knew the killer" I just wince. It's the level of detective work I've picked up from watching Law & Order and CSI.

I certainly hope there's more to it than that, but a lot of time her information seems useless. She's not claiming it's supernatural, just observation, which at least is accurate. Not sure how useful it is, but at least it's plausible that someone familiar with murders could be of assistance to local police who won't have that level of experience.
 
Hi guys, I'm getting my ba in forensic psychology - think I can help you out here.
Some of the stuff is instinctive (there's that word again), but a lot of it based on known patterns of behavior among killers and these patterns remain amazingly consistent among different killers of the same "types". Some of it can actually be boiled down to statistics and they use computer programs to come up with their data (it was different when John what's his name started the whole thing). It's not an exact science, of course, otherwise they'd be able to give names, but it's often very helpful.

My argument would actually be the opposite - that psychic detectives know how to utilize some of these very down to earth methods, but the pretend they're getting answers from above.
 
By the way, although I'm getting my degree in FP, I want to be a therapist in a prison, not a FP, so it's not like I'm rabidly or blindly defending them. I've seen some pretty amazing stuff though.
 
I thought it was rather obvious and assumed that most people took profiling as a field in its nascent stages, undecided if it will become legitimate or wither from lack of usefulness.
 
Garrette said:
I thought it was rather obvious and assumed that most people took profiling as a field in its nascent stages, undecided if it will become legitimate or wither from lack of usefulness.
Click to expand...


I really had not thought about it very much. I had hoped that the FBI had actually adopted a rigorous scientific approach toward this subject and I was appalled to read that this might not be the case.

I see I am gonna have to do some reading up...
 
Isn't it just a way of marshalling what we know (or might know) about patterns in the behaviour certain types, to prevent any re-inventing of any wheels, as it were? I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of room for pseudoscience though, as with other aspects of psychology.
 
The original profilers like Ressler interviewed serial killers and other habitual criminals, and based their profiles on these studies. I think it should be recognized as more art than science though.
 
imjohn said:
The original profilers like Ressler interviewed serial killers and other habitual criminals, and based their profiles on these studies. I think it should be recognized as more art than science though.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Psychology in general is an inexact science. It about probabilities.In a criminal investigation you have to go with the most probable before investigating the less likely.
BTW the way profilers work in reality is NOT the way they are portrayed on TV.
 
korenyx said:
The profilers got several things about BTK wrong and that was before Dennis Rader started misleading them.

Kore
Click to expand...

They're not perfect. It's based on statistics, of course sometimes they won't be exactly right. However, the point you make is a very good one in that criminals are learning about these kinds of things too and learning how to avoid detection through them. For instance, there's a theory of proximity of scene in relation to where the criminal works/lives - so now they are learning to do things like dump bodies far from where they work or live.
 
panchov said:
Some of the stuff is instinctive (there's that word again), but a lot of it based on known patterns of behavior among killers and these patterns remain amazingly consistent among different killers of the same "types". Some of it can actually be boiled down to statistics and they use computer programs to come up with their data (it was different when John what's his name started the whole thing). It's not an exact science, of course, otherwise they'd be able to give names, but it's often very helpful.
Click to expand...

Can you respond to the questions I asked above?

I understand it's a matter of using probabilities, but I fail to see how it actually helps in an investigation. Even though a certain type of suspect is much more likely to be involved in a given crime, that doesn't rule out that in this case it could be an unlikely type of person. So do they ignore the profiler's advice and follow up on any promising lead, or do they heed the advice and actually ignore long shots even when there's a lead?

You're right, though, psychics play the odds. Sylvia Browne's famous premature pronouncement of Shawn Hornbeck's death was according to normal expectations. (If the child is missing for a long time, he's most likely already dead.)

I can imagine cases like this (substituting a profiler for Sylvia) where failing to take a lead seriously (because it is a long shot that someone missing so long would still be alive) could be disastrous.

I guess I'm asking what good is their advice? A good detective should go where the evidence points and not get too hung up on how the pattern usually happens. Profiling seems to be giving that "pattern" undue weight in an investigation.
 
No, they don't "ignore" people outside the profile, but if you have a case where there are very little clues, it can give you a direction to go in. Obviously if they get evidence or witnesses or whatever that lead them to a different type of person they're not going to say forget him, he doesn't fit the profile.

Even without profiles police would always go WITH statistics. For instance, families members are always the ones who have to be ruled out first. Serial killers are more likely to be men. Violent offenders would be more likely to be looked at closely than someone who has never been convicted or accused.

A profile is a tool, used in conjunction with many other tools, not an all out solution.
 
panchov said:
No, they don't "ignore" people outside the profile, but if you have a case where there are very little clues, it can give you a direction to go in. Obviously if they get evidence or witnesses or whatever that lead them to a different type of person they're not going to say forget him, he doesn't fit the profile.

Even without profiles police would always go WITH statistics. For instance, families members are always the ones who have to be ruled out first. Serial killers are more likely to be men. Violent offenders would be more likely to be looked at closely than someone who has never been convicted or accused.

A profile is a tool, used in conjunction with many other tools, not an all out solution.
Click to expand...

I agree it makes most sense to go with higher probability suspects first, but even there I think the danger is in getting an early prejudice in a case and letting it color whatever comes to light.

Also, if there's little or no evidence, I would think most success comes from publicizing appeals for information (tip lines).

Is there any research on how often profilers actually help a case? I suppose it's hard to prove "helpful" as opposed to merely how often their profile turns out to match the actual criminal's profile.

I can think of a few high profile cases (er. . pardon the pun) where the publicized profile turned out to be dead wrong. Not only not helpful, but probably obstructive.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I agree it makes most sense to go with higher probability suspects first, but even there I think the danger is in getting an early prejudice in a case and letting it color whatever comes to light.

Also, if there's little or no evidence, I would think most success comes from publicizing appeals for information (tip lines).
Click to expand...
From some of the "true crime" books I've read (including the ones by John Douglas) a tip line can create so many leads that the good ones get lost among all the bad ones. I'm not saying that they don't help, but a profile can help prioritize which to investigate first, while not ignoring the rest.

Is there any research on how often profilers actually help a case? I suppose it's hard to prove "helpful" as opposed to merely how often their profile turns out to match the actual criminal's profile.

I can think of a few high profile cases (er. . pardon the pun) where the publicized profile turned out to be dead wrong. Not only not helpful, but probably obstructive.
Click to expand...
You can probably get the actual statistics from the FBI through FOIA. Also from what I've read they re most helpful when it comes to interrogation techniques. See the "Atlanta Child Murders" for an example of that. BTW Douglas still believes that there were some killings attributed to Wayne Williams that he never commited.
 
imjohn said:
The original profilers like Ressler interviewed serial killers and other habitual criminals, and based their profiles on these studies. I think it should be recognized as more art than science though.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The difference between profilers and psychics is that psychics just announce themselves as such, and brook no disagreement.

Profilers go through training, and understand the scientific method. It's a proper process of analysis and educated estimation.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I agree it makes most sense to go with higher probability suspects first, but even there I think the danger is in getting an early prejudice in a case and letting it color whatever comes to light.
Click to expand...

It's true. but as I said it's true w/o profiles also. Look at what police have done to parents whose kids were killed because they didn't think the parent cried enough or they cried too much and that meant they were guilty. People always will have prejudices, sometimes just based on what suspects look like. Welcome to the human race!
 
True we're all subject to biased thinking and prejudice can color our perceptions--and in science, everything is done to minimize those prejudices and let the evidence point the way, even when it's counterintuitive.

Coming up with a profile based on statistics of past crimes seems to me to make it more likely for investigators to lock onto an idea long before the evidence points that way. It almost gives a scientific stamp of approval to adhering to a pattern.

Especially when the pronouncements are given as description that sounds definitive (very much like a psychic). Here's an example: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fbi_lisk.html
Highly nervous, irritable, short-tempered disposition. Disruption of normal sleeping patterns. Changes in physical appearance, such as hair coloring or new cut, removal or growth of facial hair. Lack of pride in appearance.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom