The Profiler: Difference between revisions
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)
(update links) |
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)) |
||
Line 6:
Profiling is a real discipline within criminology, and it really does sometimes seem like magic, but in the real world, accurate profiling is one of the hardest things in all of criminal science, and almost never produces a particularly specific result. In fact, at least one study has shown that profilers are no better at picking out guilty suspects than any random intelligent person.
Real-life profilers try to stress that profiling will never be a replacement for old-fashioned police work, and their work is better used as a tool to exclude suspects who don't fit the profile as opposed to fingering the guilty party by describing them to a "T" right down to the color of his/her shoes. It doesn't help that the very first profiler—Dr. James Brussel, an eminent psychologist who consulted on the New York City "[[Mad Bomber]]" case in the 1950s -- ''did'' correctly predict what kind of suit the bomber would be wearing when arrested (and [https://web.archive.org/web/20121029110919/http://www.gladwell.com/2007/2007_11_12_a_profile.html almost nothing else]).<ref>Note also that Brussel's profile had been made public, so it's possible that the bomber's choice of clothing had been unconsciously influenced by it.</ref>
Naturally, the public hasn't listened for the most part. Thus Profilers in TV-land are far more effecient, accurate and almost ''never'' wrong.
| |||