Alan: "It is not your duty to understand. It is my duty to make myself understood."
With that in mind, then, I'll try again: I submit that the pressures on our various leaders do indeed exist, that they somehow should provide us with a warm, fuzzy, swaddling-cloth world. Many years ago, I labelled this nonsense "Naderism"--the notion that if we just have enough laws and regulations, we will be safe from any harm of whatever sort.
This notion, these pressures, have given us labels on the top of stepladders, mandatory seatbelt laws, the Brady Bill, "dead-man" throttles on lawnmowers...This "profiling" notion is just another item in a long list...
As I said in my previous post, I am not surprised that an effort such as profiling is being touted as some sort of great and glorious help. Not being surprised does not mean either that I approve of it, or that I think it will do any good. Sorry, but I thought I had so indicated.
Looking over some of the other posts, let me say that profiling is a tool. A standardized IQ test is a tool. The problem is that some people "in the business" think these are *answers*. Obviously, I think, these people are incorrect. But I do believe these tools are useful. To stay with the tool analogy: Just because somebody misuses a screwdriver as a pry-bar or chisel does not mean that it is not useful at all. That some FBI person incorrectly alleged that profiling led to Bundy's discovery means nothing. After all, not all the personnel of any organization know everything the organization does or has done, much less how or why...
Similarly, a low IQ test score can indicate that the testee was too hungover to think clearly--or a very bright person has some degree of dyslexia...The score is merely a useful datum about a person, and cannot measure the probability of success in the usual meaning. There are members of Mensa who have been among the homeless, or who complain of the cost of drinks and a meal at a social gathering...
A last point: Do you think that many of those who vote for some protective-style of law--e.g., Brady--really believe it will accomplish anything useful? They many times vote for useless garbage in order to look good back home, to make points for re-election. Do you think the Schumers or Feinsteins really believe what they spout about gun control? Or Clinton? All these people strongly believe they absolutely must be perceived as being "in control" and able to "do something".
And I think you know how wrong they are.
Regards, Art