The paintings of Jack Kevorkian show what

[skepticalbeliever]

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Jack%20Kevorkian%20paintings&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

I found some of Kevorkian's paintings on goodle and was disturbed. They seem to indicate that he has a morbid obsession with death. I think he has the same mentality as a serial killer. His paintings really struck me as indicating that there must be something wrong with him.

[Chupacabras]

They look rather centered in the implications to the material body - rather than a transcendental meaning - of life and/or death. I would guess he has/had a fear of getting old, or "ugly" (as loosing sexual appeal in older ages).

I don't think they are really significant in any other way, either as art or documentary or biographical statements.

[politas]

Are you a trained profiler of serial killers? A pychiatrist?

Do you, in fact, have any basis in training or experience other than TV shows to know what sort of things indicate the mentality of a serial killer?

[Kopji]

It might bother me if someone misspelled "American" on my tombstone.

[qayak]

Are you a trained profiler of serial killers? A pychiatrist?

Do you, in fact, have any basis in training or experience other than TV shows to know what sort of things indicate the mentality of a serial killer?

Does it matter? http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

[qayak]

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Jack%20Kevorkian%20paintings&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

I found some of Kevorkian's paintings on goodle and was disturbed. They seem to indicate that he has a morbid obsession with death. I think he has the same mentality as a serial killer. His paintings really struck me as indicating that there must be something wrong with him.

I think perhaps you are projecting your beliefs and prejudices onto Kevorkian.

[RandFan]

I'm not in any way shape or form an expert. And for the record I support euthanasia. That said I think the guy very much is into death and he found a great outlet for his obsession. For awhile he got to experience people dying and then he thought he could kill someone and get away with it.

I think he cares about the cause. I think he sincerely cared about the people he has helped and the people who suffer and are denied dignity by not having the right to seek medical help in ending their life. I also think he gets off on people dying. It's not unheard of for medical people to have fetishes or simply a morbid fascination with people dying. And to be sure, caring about people isn't mutually exclusive from liking death.

Now, is that evil or immoral? I've no idea.

Do I know in fact the guy has a kink for death? No.

He creeps me out though and he's a ***ty advocate for a very important cause.

[RandFan]

I think perhaps you are projecting your beliefs and prejudices onto Kevorkian. Because god forbid anyone form an opinion of another based on behavior.

[Foolmewunz]

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Jack%20Kevorkian%20paintings&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

I found some of Kevorkian's paintings on goodle and was disturbed. They seem to indicate that he has a morbid obsession with death. I think he has the same mentality as a serial killer. His paintings really struck me as indicating that there must be something wrong with him.

Dr. Death - obsessed with death? Who'd a thunk it.

His career and his life were inextricably linked to death. I don't find it in the least surprising that it might be on his mind from time to time.

And have you ever looked at the artwork of a serial killer? Other than Manson, who was playing to the crowd, most of them produce works that are very ordinary, overly organized and regimented, unfeeling, and almost completely indicating a lack of talent.

[RandFan]

And have you ever looked at the artwork of a serial killer? Other than Manson, who was playing to the crowd, most of them produce works that are very ordinary, overly organized and regimented, unfeeling, and almost completely indicating a lack of talent.I take it you've never seen one of Gacy's clowns (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=gacy%20clown%20art&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)?

But now we are profiling and as Ron White says "profiling is wrong".

:D

[Foolmewunz]

I take it you've never seen one of Gacy's clowns (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=gacy%20clown%20art&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)?

But now we are profiling and as Ron White says "profiling is wrong".

:D

A few of Gacy's clowns were morbid. Most of his work, though, was trite and uninteresting and totally unassociated with the sort of crimes he is infamous for.

[qayak]

Because god forbid anyone form an opinion of another based on behavior.

Too bad that isn't what's happening here. Perhaps skepticalbeliever can give us an insight into Charles Shulz's personal opinions on euthanasia, abortion, same sex marriages, etc. based on the art of the Peanuts comic strip. :rolleyes:

[Dysphemist]

Maybe a painting that has disturbed you has done its job well. :)

[Safe-Keeper]

I think he cares about the cause. I think he sincerely cared about the people he has helped and the people who suffer and are denied dignity by not having the right to seek medical help in ending their life.And how many of these people would be leading happy, productive and meaningful lives today if they hadn't been killed? If someone has suicidal thoughts, you treat them and then give them another shot at life. Anything else is simply as inhumane as letting anorectics starve to death rather than force-feeding them, or telling a paranoid schizophrenic person that yes, there is indeed a cabal of people out there to kill them and aye, they will be horribly tortured and killed in a matter of months.

And have you ever looked at the artwork of a serial killer? Other than Manson, who was playing to the crowd, most of them produce works that are very ordinary, overly organized and regimented, unfeeling, and almost completely indicating a lack of talent. How about genocidal Europeans (http://images.google.no/images?hl=no&q=hitler%27s%20paintings&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)?

[Monketey Ghost]

Thing is, would you have made those associations if he was just some joker you'd never heard of?

[Foolmewunz]

How about genocidal Europeans (http://images.google.no/images?hl=no&q=hitler%27s%20paintings&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)?

Actually, I was thinking of Uncle Adolf when I wrote my original post. People have tried pop-psychology on his "art", and essentially, the most they can come up with is that it's humorless, dull, and lifeless. I've seen attempts at extrapolating that into, well, into something... but I'm not convinced.

I firmly believe it's only in Grade B suspense films that the monster within is revealed by his sub-conscious brush strokes.

If artwork was indication of sociopathic tendencies, someone ought to have had a word with a couple of Spanish dudes, Picasso and Dali.

[RandFan]

Perhaps skepticalbeliever can give us an insight into Charles Shulz's personal opinions on euthanasia, abortion, same sex marriages, etc. based on the art of the Peanuts comic strip. If Shulz had dealt with those issues in his art then I would think it odd to ignore it.

But I'll make an argument in your favor. Shulz was an atheist but he wrote a show about Christmas that dealt favorably with Christianity. To argue that Shulz's Christmas special was proof Shulz wasn't an atheist would be wrong. That said, I think we can infer values that Shulz held based on his art. I think we can do the same for Kevorkian, given the context. I would not make any absolute statements about him but I would form an opinion. And I have done so.

[RandFan]

And how many of these people would be leading happy, productive and meaningful lives today if they hadn't been killed? I doubt any of them. Have you bothered to find out the facts?

[Morrigan]

Yeah, and Giger and everyone else who ever made dark art probably has a serial killer mindset and/or is obsessed with death. How's that 2 cents pop psychology working for you? :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Yeah, and Giger and everyone else who ever made dark art probably has a serial killer mindset and/or is obsessed with death. How's that 2 cents pop psychology working for you? :rolleyes: I love Giger. Big time. And I love the Latin view of death celebrated in art and culture. My son is a big fan of dark art and themes of death. We've spent many hours discussing it and I find it a fascinating subject and not indicitive of anything untoward anyone simply for being interested in the subject.

You responded directly below me so I assume your upturned gaze is directed at me. I encourage you to go back and read all of my posts.

I've stated that "I don't know". But let's not play dumb. It is possible to infer an opinion. The guy has really gone out of his way to assist people in dying. He has even taken the step to kill someone. On top of that he has shown an obsession with death including art of a rather disturbing nature.

Does that prove anything? No.
Does Kevorkian creep me out kinda in the way Michael Jackson creeps me out? Yeah.
That's it. I support his cause. I believe that the people he assisted in suicide were mostly if not all in a position that if I were in I would make THE EXACT SAME DECISION.

So, don't attribute to me a position that I don't hold.

[qayak]

That said, I think we can infer values that Shulz held based on his art. I think we can do the same for Kevorkian, given the context.

No, you can't. You have nothing to compare to. Not all people in favour of euthanasia create dark art and not all dark art creators support euthanasia.
The fact that Kevorkian created art that you find dark and in reference to death doesn't mean Kevorkian created it for that reason.

What you are claiming is that you can read minds. Many injustices have occured because of this type of hogwash.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/18/masters.cops/index.html

ETA: You are looking at this wrong. You only see those things in kevorkian's art because you know what he has been convicted of. If this is such an effective tool, why aren't police combing art galleries and shops looking for the next Charles Manson?

[RandFan]

No, you can't.I live in a free country. If I want to infer an opinion then I have every right to. There are no thought police where I live. If you truly believe this then notify a mod but I doubt you will have any success.

What you are claiming is that you can read minds.That is intellectually dishonest since I've stated time and again that I don't know and none of the criteria that I've used to form an opinion prove anything.

Try again.

Many injustices have occured because of this type of hogwash.
Oh please, dial it down a notch.

If this is such an effective tool, why aren't police combing art galleries and shops looking for the next Charles Manson?You are projecting and not listening.

A: I've stated I don't know. B: I've stated that the criteria I've used to base my opinion on proves nothing.

Read that again.
And again,
One more time.

Got it? Goooood......

Sheesh, for crying in the dark, this isn't necessary, just read what I write and think about what I'm saying. Stop imagining the worst in people just because someone disagrees with you.

And BTW: You need an avatar of Don Quixote. Your defense of your causes is a bit overblown. Reasonable people can in fact disagree. Not everyone is your enemy. Stop tilting at windmills.


I support the cause of Kevorkian.
I believe the people he assisted truly needed, and dignity called for, his help.
I don't think Kevorkian is a mass murderer or even a murderer for that fact.
I wouldn't have put Kevorkian in jail for what he was put in jail for.

[bobcarp]

His paintings don't look any more disturbing than the religious paintings of some guy dying on a cross or painted scenes of hell that I was shown at Sunday school as a kid.

[qayak]

I live in a free country. If I want to infer an opinion then I have every right to. There are no thought police where I live. If you truly believe this then notify a mod but I doubt you will have any success.

Yes, you are free to do as you please but we are also free not to believe the claims you make. You make a claim of inference that is completely, and demonstrably, false.

That is intellectually dishonest since I've stated time and again that I don't know and none of the criteria that I've used to form an opinion prove anything.

Then you have not done what you said you had done which was to make factual statements about Kevorkian based on his art. That is where the real intellectual dishonesty lies. You are hiding behind your incorrect opinion and your right to hold that incorrect opinion and using it to support a woo belief.

Oh please, dial it down a notch.

Its woo no matter how you slice it. I am not so much surprised that you fell for it as I am surprised you do not correct your mistake.

Stop imagining the worst in people just because someone disagrees with you.

Because I point out the obvious flaw in your claim I hate you? Come on, Randfan, I think you are a great person but I think you are mistaken here.

And BTW: You need an avatar of Don Quixote. Your defense of your causes is a bit overblown. Reasonable people can in fact disagree. Not everyone is your enemy. Stop tilting at windmills.

Nah! Someone already had that avatar.


I support the cause of Kevorkian.
I believe the people he assisted truly needed, and dignity called for, his help.
I don't think Kevorkian is a mass murderer or even a murderer for that fact.
I wouldn't have put Kevorkian in jail for what he was put in jail for.


Completely a non-issue. That isn't the subject of this disagreement. The subject is that you cannot infer character traits from the art someone creates and there is much evidence to back that up.

[RandFan]

Yes, you are free to do as you please but we are also free not to believe the claims you make. You make a claim of inference that is completely, and demonstrably, false.No, no and no.

Then you have not done what you said you had done which was to make factual statements about Kevorkian based on his art. That is where the real intellectual dishonesty lies.BS, wrong.

Its woo no matter how you slice it. I am not so much surprised that you fell for it as I am surprised you do not correct your mistake. You really need to get over yourself.

...I hate you?
:rolleyes: When did I use the word "hate"?

Dude!

Completely a non-issue.No, it's context. It's quite relative. The guy creeps me out for the reasons stated. I think he's obsessed with death in an unhealthy way. It's an opinion. I've not acted on the opinion. I've not advocated action based on the opinion. I don't oppose the guy's cause. I don't claim to be able to read his mind. I don't claim to know. I don't wish him harm.

Your complaint is hyper silly. And I'm sorry, but I can rely on circumstantial evidence to form an opinion. The guy seems to have an emotional obsession with being with people who are dying, even at great risk to himself. He collects bizarre and disturbing art about death. There are people in the medical field who enjoy watching people die. He fits the profile, IMO. You don't have to agree. You can think it's woo. But you are being silly.

BTW: Are people who have artwork of marijuana and advocate for legalizing marijuana more likely to smoke marijuana than those that don't? Guess what, I advocate for legalizing marijuana and I have some artwork featuring marijuana. I DON'T SMOKE IT.

But I'm an exception and you know that.

If I stated that the facts surrounding Kevorkian were proof beyond a reasonable doubt about something you would have a point. A.) I don't and B.) You don't.

I'm only assessing the likelihood of something based on circumstantial evidence.

Seriously, dude, take a pill.

[qayak]

:rolleyes: When did I use the word "hate"?

You said that I thought the worst of someone because they disagreed with me. The worst I can do is to hate you, so I assumed that was what you were talking about. However, seeing as you can read minds, why don't you tell me what the worst I can think of you is?

No, it's context. It's quite relative. The guy creeps me out for the reasons stated. I think he's obsessed with death in an unhealthy way. It's an opinion. Blah, blah, blah So what? The thread is about creating a character profile from the art of Kevorkian. You started the argument with me by creating a strawman and you continue it here. This isn't about your opinion. Should a thread regarding your opinion of Kevorkian ever come up, I will be sure to register my lack of give a **** about that opinion, by not to posting in it.

Please do not swear in your posts.

[RandFan]

You said that I thought the worst of someone because they disagreed with me.No I didn't. I really didn't.

I SAID: "Stop imagining the worst in people just because someone disagrees with you." (and FTR it means to impune the worst possible motives to someone and says nothing of what you THINK of someone). It's most certainly possible to imagine the worst in someone and not hate them.

This isn't about your opinion. You really, really, need to get over yourself.

If you honestly think I don't have a right to share an opinion about Kevorkian in a thread about Kevorkian then might I suggest you report it to a mod? Otherwise I don't really care. I think you've stirred a giant tempest in a tiny tea cup and I honestly have no idea why.

[qayak]

I SAID: "Stop imagining the worst in people just because someone disagrees with you."

Yes, you were projecting your feelings onto me.

It's most certainly possible to imagine the worst in someone and not hate them.

Yes, but it is also common to hate the worst in people. But you go ahead and tell me how I feel. You are quite the little mindreader . . . Kevorkian and now me!

You really, really, need to get over yourself.

Why?

If you honestly think I don't have a right to share an opinion about Kevorkian in a thread about Kevorkian then might I suggest you report it to a mod? Otherwise I don't really care. I think you've stirred a giant tempest in a tiny tea cup and I honestly have no idea why.

I think it is you who needs to get over himself. I never responded to your opinion because I couldn't care less about it. I responded to your strawman about forming an opinion based on action when the thread, and my argument, were about forming a profile of another person from the art they create.

When your arguments didn't hold water you fell back on the false claim that it was only your "opinion," which is true but completely irrelelvent to the subject.

I think you should just admit you are wrong, drop to your knees, and beg my forgiveness . . . It's really the only way out for you. :p

[RandFan]

Yes, you were projecting your feelings onto me.Is a simple "Hey, I was wrong and I'm sorry" too difficult for you?

Yes, but it is also common to hate the worst in people. Hate the worst or hate the people? You are bending yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid acknowledging a simple mistake. It's really not washing. Stop digging the hole.

When your arguments didn't hold water you fell back on the false claim that it was only your "opinion," which is true but completely irrelevant to the subject. Honestly, what in the sam hell are you talking about?

Here is my first post:

...I think the guy very much is into death and he found a great outlet for his obsession. For awhile he got to experience people dying and then he thought he could kill someone and get away with it.

I think he cares about the cause. I think he sincerely cared about the people he has helped and the people who suffer and are denied dignity by not having the right to seek medical help in ending their life. I also think he gets off on people dying. It's not unheard of for medical people to have fetishes or simply a morbid fascination with people dying. And to be sure, caring about people isn't mutually exclusive from liking death.

Now, is that evil or immoral? I've no idea.

Do I know in fact the guy has a kink for death? No.

He creeps me out though and he's a ***ty advocate for a very important cause. Please note the word "think". I've emphasized it for you. I said it 4 times. What do you think, the word "think" means in this context? Well, I'll tell you, it means that I'm simply offerning an opinion. If not I would say "It's a fact" or "I know" or "therefore". Also, please note that I'm acknowledging a LACK of knowledge. And, please due the right thing, acknowledge those facts.

And if not then please to highlight the portions that confirm what it is you are talking about because I think you are completely nuts.

[RandFan]

And you know what, I've said "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong" at least a hundred times on this forum. It would be awfully nice if more people could bring themselves to do it.

[RandFan]

BTW: My second post. Please note highlighted text.


If Shulz had dealt with those issues in his art then I would think it odd to ignore it.

But I'll make an argument in your favor. Shulz was an atheist but he wrote a show about Christmas that dealt favorably with Christianity. To argue that Shulz's Christmas special was proof Shulz wasn't an atheist would be wrong. That said, I think we can infer values that Shulz held based on his art. I think we can do the same for Kevorkian, given the context. I would not make any absolute statements about him but I would form an opinion. And I have done so.

[qayak]

BTW: My second post. Please note highlighted text.

Your whole post was twaddle.

You will notice I didn't respond to your first post because there wasn't anything I wanted to respond to. I responded to the second one because it was a strawman.

Your opinion is irrelevent which is why I didn't repsond to it and when you specifically referenced it, I told you it was irrelevent to anything I said.

Now, you will have to fall to your knees, beg my forgiveness, and pay me large amounts of cash and precious gems to allow you to leave this thread.

(Better do it now because if your silliness continues I will be contacting Shemp for the use of his goats to pleasure you while you are on your knees. Or is that what you are waiting for?) :D

[Morrigan]

You responded directly below me so I assume your upturned gaze is directed at me. I encourage you to go back and read all of my posts.

No. I was responding to the OP. Sorry if that was unclear.

[RandFan]

You will notice I didn't respond to your first post because there wasn't anything I wanted to respond to. I responded to the second one because it was a strawman.And it was STILL just an opinion. No strawman. And I guess no apology forthcoming even though it is clearly demonstrable that you were wrong.

Fine dude. Whatever.

[qayak]

BTW: My second post. Please note highlighted text.

That wasn't your second post it was your fourth. Your second post was this and it was in response to one of my posts.

Because god forbid anyone form an opinion of another based on behavior.

You see, that poster made comments about Kevorkians art and I said he was reading his own feelings into the artwork. You jumped in and made a claim about drawing opinions from behaviour which was the strawman. We weren't talking about drawing opinions from behaviour, we were discussing drawing opinions about a person from the art they create.

[qayak]

And it was STILL just an opinion. No strawman. And I guess no apology forthcoming even though it is clearly demonstrable that you were wrong.

Fine dude. Whatever.

I was wrong in your delusions. The only way I can be wrong is if you can really draw accurate profiles of people from the art they create because the only claim I have made is that you can't.

I think the correct expression for your mistakes here is, "You are not even wrong." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[RandFan]

The only way I can be wrong is if you can really draw accurate profiles of people from the art they create because the only claim I have made is that you can't. Ego is tough isn't it?

I infered an opinion based on a profile.
From the start I said that I DIDN'T KNOW.
From the start I said that it DIDN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
I explained why I formed my opinion
I've not deviated from that in any way.
So, yes, you are wrong. And on top of that you have turned this into something completly silly and absurd and wholy unnecassary.

[RandFan]

Oh, and BTW, what strawman?

[RandFan]

You see, that poster made comments about Kevorkians art and I said he was reading his own feelings into the artwork. You jumped in and made a claim about drawing opinions from behavior which was the strawman. We weren't talking about drawing opinions from behavior, we were discussing drawing opinions about a person from the art they create.I missed this post.

Yeah, I stand by that. It's what we do as humans. We don't get perfect information to base decisions. We actually can and should base opinions on people's behavior. If I see a guy outside a mini-mart at night standing around and watching people and acting suspicious I'm going to form an opinion. It might be that the guy is a cop but it's a prudent thing to do. Is it possible for us to be wrong? Hell yeah. Which I more than covered. And BTW, this is exactly why I explained my other points about Kevorkian. To give some context and demonstrate why I didn't simply think the guy a creep.

So, you still got nothing to stand on. It was an appropriate response to your post. Forming an opinion based on someone's behavior doesn't mean that someone is interjecting their prejudices. You've not even established that the poster in question has any such prejudices. But I'll grant you that you were simply stating an opinion.

I'll admit I was wrong. That was the second post.

[RandFan]

qayak,

It's funny, as is typical we were arguing past each other. I wish you had explained what the problem was earlier on though I confess that had a I gone back and checked the progression of the discussion I would have taken a different tack. I honestly forgot that post.

In any event, having taken some time to think about it I think I better understand your position and regret the post that began all of this. Not that I disagree with the point I was making but rather that it was somewhat gratuitous and somewhat provocative.

I do that without thinking sometimes and I regret that about myself. I'm sorry for responding in that fashion. I disagree with you on the substance of the argument but I'm not above apologizing for rude behavior.

RandFan

[qayak]

I disagree with you on the substance of the argument but I'm not above apologizing for rude behavior.

You don't owe me an apology. I don't get upset about much in life, too old for that, and internet discussion forums are far down on my list of things to get my shorts in a knot over.

I always enjoy trading barbs with you and we hadn't done it in such a long time. I was lonely! :D

Have a great day,

Ian

[Cainkane1]

I was wrong in your delusions. The only way I can be wrong is if you can really draw accurate profiles of people from the art they create because the only claim I have made is that you can't.

I think the correct expression for your mistakes here is, "You are not even wrong." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Unless I'm mistaken psychological profiles have been made studying the subjects doodles. Doodles are done in a whimsical absent minded fashion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Charles manson doodled when he was on trial for murder and much of his doodling consisted of clown like humans without arms. I forgot what the conclusion was. Something about the armless doodles representing helplessness of his subjects.

I am not taking sides in this interesting debate.

[qayak]

Unless I'm mistaken psychological profiles have been made studying the subjects doodles. Doodles are done in a whimsical absent minded fashion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Charles manson doodled when he was on trial for murder and much of his doodling consisted of clown like humans without arms. I forgot what the conclusion was. Something about the armless doodles representing helplessness of his subjects.

The question is not whether people use doodles to create profiles of other people. The question is on the accuracy of those profiles. Were those armless clowns really representative of the helplessness of his subjects or was that just the profiler's opinion of what they represented?

There is a huge difference and one that can lead to false positives and false negatives in criminal investigations.

[politas]

The question is not whether people use doodles to create profiles of other people. The question is on the accuracy of those profiles. Were those armless clowns really representative of the helplessness of his subjects or was that just the profiler's opinion of what they represented?And would another profiler looking at the same doodles and not knowing who did them perhaps think they were drawn by a person who had been molested as a child who feels helpless to change his or her situation?

[qayak]

And would another profiler looking at the same doodles and not knowing who did them perhaps think they were drawn by a person who had been molested as a child who feels helpless to change his or her situation?

Exactly. Look at all the profiles that have been completely out to lunch and others that have needed "interpretation" to even remotley describe the perpetrator.

It was such a "profile" that targetted Richard Jewell as the Olympic bomber and allowed the case to go cold for 3 months.

This is the FBI profile on the Unabomber: "The FBI says he's likely a single white male in his 40s, with strawberry blond hair and a ruddy complexion. He seems to be highly literate and to have a love of nature. He probably has a good job and is well-liked and polite."

Once he was caught, the reports were: "Officials say Kaczynski, detained Wednesday in Lincoln, bears startling similarities to the FBI's profile of the Unabomber: highly educated, quiet, antisocial, meticulous."

I guess they almost got a match as "highly literate" could be mistaken for "highly educated."

I think it is hilarious that a profiler can tell the colour of a person's hair from the bombs they mail to people! Hilarious as in "outrageously idiotic."

[RandFan]

Exactly. Look at all the profiles that have been completely out to lunch and others that have needed "interpretation" to even remotley describe the perpetrator.

It was such a "profile" that targetted Richard Jewell as the Olympic bomber and allowed the case to go cold for 3 months.

This is the FBI profile on the Unabomber: "The FBI says he's likely a single white male in his 40s, with strawberry blond hair and a ruddy complexion. He seems to be highly literate and to have a love of nature. He probably has a good job and is well-liked and polite."

Once he was caught, the reports were: "Officials say Kaczynski, detained Wednesday in Lincoln, bears startling similarities to the FBI's profile of the Unabomber: highly educated, quiet, antisocial, meticulous."

I guess they almost got a match as "highly literate" could be mistaken for "highly educated."

I think it is hilarious that a profiler can tell the colour of a person's hair from the bombs they mail to people! Hilarious as in "outrageously idiotic."Statistical analysis isn't an exact science and was never argued to be. Of course there are exceptions. Given that most "X" are black, the discovery of an albino X would not falsify the statement.

[qayak]

Statistical analysis isn't an exact science and was never argued to be. Of course there are exceptions. Given that most "X" are black, the discovery of an albino X would not falsify the statement.

Yes, the mistake is in using generalizations to accurately identify individuals. You would think that a expert in statistical analysis would know this and not make such a ridiculous mistake. The absurdity of profiles is that there are so many so called "experts" making the same mistake . . . although it must be said that they are making a good living which could account for it.

As for exceptions, like lie detectors, these exceptions ruin lives.

ETA: Explain to me how using a profiler is any different than using a psychic.

[RandFan]

ETA: Explain to me how using a profiler is any different than using a psychic.I'm no apologist for profiling. It's not my point. I would think a profiler would have a far higher success rate than a psychic as a profiler is applying stastics to a problem. And BTW, police succesfuly use profiling daily to target crime (IE Prostitutes are unlikely to be old women at the bingo parlor). The profiling in question is simply taking the method to a more extreme level and I'm not familiar with any evidence that shows it to be wildly succesful.

[qayak]

And BTW, police succesfuly use profiling daily to target crime (IE Prostitutes are unlikely to be old women at the bingo parlor)l.

Yes, but this is not the type of profiling under discussion. Police do not claim that none of those old women at the bingo parlor are prostitutes and one likely is. What they are saying is that targetting prostitution at a bingo parlour full of old women is not likely to be a good use of resources.

The type of profiling we are discussing is the identification of the personality traits of an INDIVIDUAL based on the the false belief that all people do things for the same reason and then claiming this is hard evidence that can identify a criminal.

The fact is, if profiling was so accurate, shouldn't they have let Ted Kaczynski off because he didn't match the profile at all? If profiling has the ability to convict a person, shouldn't it be falsifiable and therefore have the ability to exonerate? Ted Kaczynski should have walked.

[RandFan]

Yes, but this is not the type of profiling under discussion.

...

The type of profiling we are discussing is the identification of the personality traits of an INDIVIDUAL based on the the false belief that all people do things for the same reason and then claiming this is hard evidence that can identify a criminal. I disagree that we are talking about that "type of profiling". I'm not even sure such a thing exists but I concede I could be wrong. I think FBI profiling is giving too much credence but I'm not aware that they (FBI profilers and others of their kind) honestly believe that there are no error bars in their studies. Do you?

[qayak]

I disagree that we are talking about that "type of profiling".

You must be reading a different thread than this one then.

[RandFan]

You must be reading a different thread than this one then.Hmmmm.....

From the OP.

I found some of Kevorkian's paintings on goodle and was disturbed. They seem to indicate that he has a morbid obsession with death. I think he has the same mentality as a serial killer. His paintings really struck me as indicating that there must be something wrong with him. Aside from the OP I see little in the way of absolute statements. Even the OP equivocates with "seem", "think" "struck me as" contrasted with "there must be".

What thread are you reading?

[qayak]

Hmmmm.....

From the OP.

Aside from the OP I see little in the way of absolute statements. Even the OP equivocates with "seem", "think" "struck me as" contrasted with "there must be".

What thread are you reading?

The one where people are claiming to draw conclusions about an INDIVIDUAL'S personality traits from the paintings they make. The discussion has always been about that type of profiling. Don't move the goalposts.

[RandFan]

The one where people are claiming to draw conclusions about an INDIVIDUAL'S personality traits from the paintings they make. The discussion has always been about that type of profiling. Don't move the goalposts. I honestly think we are talking past eachother. I honestly don't understand your point. It seems to me that one or two people, myself and the author of the OP are simply stating that we are forming an opinion of the likely personality of Kevorkian based on his behavior.

I've honestly tried to be polite and I was willing to appologize. I'm not moving any goalposts. So, relax and tell me what exactly the problem is? And, at the risk of repeating myself, don't impugn motives to me that are not there.

Ok?

I'm simply talking about inferring something based on shared traits. If police can draw conclusions (likely personality or behavior) about an individual based on his or her association and behavior (Marge is 60 and her primary interest is bingo at the local church then she is not likely a prostitute) then one can form an opinion about Kevorkian based on his behavior and interests. I'll refer back to my point about cannabis art and positive activism for the legalization of pot. I don't smoke pot but I have cannabis art and I actively seek the legalization of marijuana. I'm an exception. Kevorkian might also be an exception. I don't know.

I really don't see the controversy in that.