Regarding the author's name, Gonzo's Theory continues to unfold in exploring the classical school of criminology, or rational choice theory. Since the diverse field of criminology is considered a pseudoscience in this discourse, such academic efforts are considered part of the "social studies arena" and other pseudoscientific philosophical adventures. Of these investigative endeavors, associated metaphysical endeavors also include psychology, sociology, and theology as primary fields of human behavioral analyses. In this discussion, these prominent liberal arts domains, often called the "social studies arena, " encompass diverse human activities. Accompanying these adventures are a multitude of philosophical viewpoints. These are matters of opinion as to the interpretation of subsequent inquiries. As adherents to one school of thought or another, each attempt to focus on furthering the exploration of human interactivity. In particular, criminology is a broad field with several subsets.

     For studies of criminal behavior, the spheres of criminology generally delve into the nature of unsocial and maladaptive behavioral activities. As to a classical or rational choice perspective, Gonzo's Theory considers various factors, including the primacy of free will. From a practitioner's viewpoint, rational choice is a key element in this spectrum. This perspective considers the various domains in the "social studies arena" part of a broader range of pseudoscience. Many investigative endeavors fall within the pseudoscience framework. Generally speaking, pseudosciences refer to areas of ideological pursuits that are not within the scope and structure of real science. Pseudoscience, whose adherents may or may not utilize the so-called "scientific method", lacks serious scientific efficacy in the final proofs of evidentiary substantiation. More often than not, conclusions are heavily laden with bias, fallacies of inference, and deficient provability that meet lawful standards of scientific validation.

     Pseudoscientific endeavors suggest various pursuits and similar affiliations connected with such studies in parapsychology, paranormal, and planetary (UFOs and aliens) investigative processes. The above contrasts with the natural world's hardcore, materially oriented scientific undertakings. For the realms of the real sciences, examples include astrophysics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics, to name a few. As to the preceding, this is the philosophical perspective within the scope of this discourse.

     Regarding any manifestations to the contrary, everyone is free to believe whatever they so desire. Nonetheless, in law enforcement, the practitioner's role in applying criminological theories comes full-on and face-to-face with the harsh realities of human behavior. Reality is often much more starkly dangerous than that asserted in a textbook in the safe mediocrity of the classroom. For that unique perspective developed from real-world empiricism, belief systems bridge back and forth from the real into the surreal. As to that minor point, there is a dichotomy between the practitioner and the non-practitioner. As an expression of that, there is a potential theory development, based on many years of experiential proficiency, that considers "fortune telling" in the same spherical domain as so-called "criminal profiling". Both are cast into the nebulous regions of wishful thinking that invite the appellation of pseudoscientific practices. Essentially, both lack a solid foundation of evidentiary authentication.

     Alleged "criminal profiling" and comparison to fortune-telling invite serious investigative criticism from the classical criminology perspective. To prove any semblance of reality through scientific validation leaves both subjects wanting any sign of credibility. The rigorous scientific methodology remains woefully deficient without showing any relevance to established scientific principles. For the applications of scientific examination in law enforcement, for instance, the crime lab is summoned to the crime scene. In this, those trained in "forensic sciences" from the real sciences labor to discover physical evidence to substantiate the nature of the criminality. In the armchair world of speculative criminal profiling, opinion replaces scientific efficiency in evidentiary revelation. A host of nebulous notions attempt to discern causation out of the shady spheres of magical thinking. Yet, serious vicarious connection to the actual criminality is woefully underprovided. Empirical evidence demands proof beyond any doubt.

     Contrasting fortune telling with "criminal profiling" immediately summons the ire of the advocates who favor the spooky factor. Television, movies, and associated ghost stories have been very influential in promoting make-believe. Purported "reality TV" always invites serious analysis of its pretext and hidden agenda. Along with that comes the critical analysis of any conjecture. Questioning the foundation of one's beliefs is a good place to focus and, in the process, apply the testing of falsification, rather than play among the surreal flashes of invented phantasms of wishful thinking. From the dreamscape of hope springs eternal for the satiation of subjective validation; the confirmation bias of specious conjecture should be regularly challenged. Trying to turn make-believe into reality is part of the con artistry.

     A sleight of hand assists in the promotion of a particular agenda. Most often, that trajectory is a reflection of selfish motivations. Such exploits look to the next fixture on the byways of human travels whereby "tricks of one's trade" can be applied. In a fictional representation of metaphorical fascination, along comes a character known as "Stewart Pidd". This is fictional, of course, and much of the conjecture arises from the theory-laden domains in the liberal arts of academia. But the storytelling is about making a point. Where is the science? Such questions echo the halls of research and subsequent investigations. And, in the practitioner's realm of criminology in the real world of human interactivity, a standard of evidence is vital. Here, that rudimentary basis is about whether or not the particular point of view meets scientific validation in a court of law; back to the short story. CSI Stewart Pidd, known to his colleagues as Stu Pidd, had not evolved much since his early studies in sociology.

     Nonetheless, in his special dynamic persona, he fancied himself as a brilliant scientist, often praising himself. This naturally is not untypical in academia within the "social studies arena". Many wannabe "scientist" claim their school of thought is somehow connected to real hardcore science. Meanwhile, over in the real science domains, hard-working scientists chuckle. Yet, in this realm, undergraduate and graduate students seldom take science courses above the general education requirements. So, Stu went on to promote himself after his adventures in social philosophy. He watched many crime shows on television and in the movies. As such, he embraced the "CSI effect". With his slick attire, the latest trendy mannerisms, and monogrammed shirts with cufflinks, he boasted his intellectual superiority. Amazingly, few, both in academia and on the job, questioned his viewpoints on the nature of criminality. While some dissented, others went along. Time came and went, as it often does.

     However, career advancement was slow and somewhat lackluster to his liking. So Stu, yearning for recognition and promotion in the crime lab, became very frustrated. As frustration gnawed at his psyche, self-imposed by willful personal loathing, he decided to come up with a theory. After spending much time at the local carnival and communing with psychics and fortune tellers, he concocted the "dark gene" theory. Stu theorized it was the basis for expanding the dubious theory of criminal profiling. However unscientific and devoid of any scientific validation that would stand up in a court of law, Stu convinced himself that it would sell like corn dogs at the county fair. Regardless, others considered the idea reckless and irresponsible in forensic science, which was already under attack by the nation's courts.

     For that and other matters of scientific authenticity, the many-faceted aspects of forensic science would come under fire. Not only was it bad enough for television and movies to squander those crime scene concepts, which the public and pundits easily accept, but now politicians jumped into the controversy. Stu Pidd added to the dubious nature of pseudoscience rising above real hardcore science. He spun one yarn after another from his "dark gene" theory; however unscientific, he proselytized easy prediction of "who done it." Absent any credible evidence or definitive identification, the unknown perpetrator of the crime could be surmised by profiling the crime scene. Forget the necessity of viable physical evidence; the ghost of a non-presence mattered to him. If one does not know who the bad guy is, just make it up. He thought ghost hunting was better than fingerprints or DNA, or even investigative competence, and so on. Desperate to capture the selfie of his valor for fame and fortune, book deals, talk shows, reality TV, etc.

     Stu Pidd pressed onward. Meanwhile, hard-working, dedicated, worldly veteran cops continued in the old-fashioned traditions of crime fighting. Most did their best to ignore the antics of a carnival barker. Over a century had come and gone since Locard's classic principle. Yet, evidence remains critical to solving a case. Despite vital necessities for crime solving, the charlatans rallied, and the "social studies arena" cheered on the promotion of myth, magic, and poorly contrived metaphor. Adventures in pseudoscience boosted ratings in badly acted reality TV shows. Newly invented fields like "forensic psychology" jumped into mainstream mythology as one wannabe after another wanted to tell law enforcement how to do their jobs. It seems "expertise" no longer requires expert knowledge based on real-world experience. Instead, hiding behind a computer screen as a sedentary armchair detective gave a grown-up child "expert knowledge". Blogs, pods, vlogs, and all manner of self-flagellation have flourished.

     No matter, for in the grandeur of human existence, as lackluster as it is, the motif continues in stubborn resistance to enlightened transformation. From narcissistic self-aggrandizement, the tapestry remains constant. Just about everyone overestimates their significance in the vast reaches of the universe. Yet, time has a way of laughing at the whole stage play. With a ceaseless cadence, the fundamental folly plays out the endless death of every moment. To the dustbins, the clay dissolves to be replaced by yet another attempt to make a hallowed impression. As to the paradox of human existence, legacies come and go and are quickly forgotten. No one remembers, and very few seriously care one way or the other. Seeking titles thought to be divinely inspired, gods and goddesses come and go. In the end, it all goes dark, and the start-over continues.

     As society evolves, all manner of falsehoods unfold. Stud Pidd's ruminations of self-glorification reflect the age-old echo that one is greater than reality. A flimsy theory is filled with pitfalls as the façade crumbles. Authentic and credible scientists, as seasoned veterans, often find the truth behind nebulous notions. Real substance and evidentiary validity are beyond the individual's wishes and dreams. In the end, as one dies off and fades to forgotten relics of the past, others emerge to replace them. All face the same fading folklore of themselves. As to fortune-telling, compared to criminal profiling, pseudoscience always seems to cloak the illusions of various storytelling media. Lacking the rigors of historical and contemporary evidence substantiated by scientific validation, it rarely achieves the ability for practical application. Science, particularly in the struggles of "forensic science," strives for authenticity.

      In the real world of crime-fighting, practitioners, as applied by crime scene investigators, generally have little use for such specious conjecture. More importantly, the "profiling" of DNA, fingerprints, and bite marks, for instance, relies upon the science of their provability. The focus is not on wishful thinking or subjective validation; the direction is on tangible, objective evidence. Of the various pseudosciences, like fortune telling and "criminal profiling," reliance is on subjective opinion and personal interpretation instead of concrete, verifiable facts. The relevance of evidentiary artifacts is at the top of the investigation. In the speculative nature of fortune telling and alleged "criminal profiling," the gambit is about making predictions. Or, similarly, attempting to assert the bogus conjecture of some kind of paranormal experience. By their complicity, fortune telling, and so-called "criminal profiling" of ghost hunting.

     A few years ago, one psychologist wrote an article and posed the question of whether or not "criminal profiling" should be considered deceased. A complete post-mortem is not quite in yet, but hope springs eternal. Citing a study of nearly 200 alleged profiles in criminal cases conducted by the FBI from 1971 to 1981, roughly 17% may have been helpful. The results leave much to be desired regarding achieving operational and tactical objectives. For the sake of discussion, if the average number of homicides per year is about 20,000, and using ten years, that is about 200,000, right? Considering 200 cases, applying "criminal profiling" would equate to roughly .001% of the cases. If 17% is a reliable figure for potential helpfulness in those cases, that would be an estimate of 34 cases. This represents .00017 reliability of potential, not actual, case solutions. Regardless, in subsequent surveys, most law enforcement agencies do not consider this useful at all. In the meantime, evidence is required to solve and prove criminality.

     Overall, the expanse of teleological to etiological efficacy of philosophical conjecture, .001%, is not good enough even for "government work". The illusion in the magic trick degrades the vitality, scope, and purpose of competent investigative processes. Evidence, hardcore, scientifically valid to the extent of high probability, remains essential. More efficiently, and recommended herein, is the application of multidimensional grid analysis of many cases on an ongoing basis. In effect, that would be using a cube concept to ensure cross-comparison of crime-specific cases, whereby characteristics focus on M.O. Such is a multifaceted link analysis process reinforced by "forensic intelligence" utilization. However, in the gambit of sleight of hand, like fortune-telling and other carnival acts, criminal profiling has a dark side. That is the reliance on the gullibility of people in general. People like mysteries, myths, magic, and poorly constructed metaphors. In this regard, human senses are easily tricked and encourage falsehood.

     Although in the mainstream of the mushroom clouds of social media and the "infotainment industry", such mythical beliefs might be considered illogical. But thinking is very logical to the person thinking, regardless of what others might assume. Conspiracy theories may appear at first glance to seem absurd. However, analysis is important in the hunt for definitive evidence. For many, the need for control, a sense of power, and the pretext of certainty looms fearfully close to home. Intentional, self-serving psychological factors are always at work. Pursuing conspiratorial perspectives provides a simplified explanation for the immediacy of personal gratification. With close kinship to criminal profiling or fortune-telling, speculative speciousness invites a sense of normalcy in the face of randomness or chaos. Instead, many anticipate, as hope springs eternal, that correlation equates to causation, and someone or something else is orchestrating results.

     In academia, particularly in the "social studies arena", cognitive bias plays a significant role in perpetuating a maze of theoretical constructs. The information flow instills alleged "evidence" to support existing belief systems. At the same time, every effort labors to stifle contradictory evidence. This often reinforces conspiratorial assumptions regardless, even if the evidence is weak. For conspiracy theory, or whatever the magic act, there is the provocation that special "knowledge" is in a crystal ball for those who want to be believers. Affiliation means that a person gets the privilege of being an insider and one who knows special things. A person gets to be among the "chosen" and part of a "groupthink". Such companionship offers a sense of belongingness. As mistrust of institutions grows, like higher education and government, people look for alternatives to reinforce their ideologies. They indulge in magical thinking.

          Researchers assert that adherents show eccentric behaviors as data- and evidence-driven investigative processes become more constrained by esoteric or occultic thinking processes. Some analysts claim believers are connected to the theory of "schizotypy" behaviors. Regarding this potential for a cognitive bias in an exceptional sense, the developing theory suggests a kind of "psychosis". As to this discourse here, creativity in thinking is, in all probability, not necessarily an adverse perspective. Nonetheless, considering the comparison between fortune-telling and criminal profiling, caution is warranted regarding evidentiary substantiation. In terms of normal human thinking variations, imaginative thinking is important. The distinction, however, delineates scientific validation to confirm the high probability of evidentiary viability. On an extreme spectrum, to the extent of egocentric eccentricity, belief systems may tread in areas of hallucinations, delusions, and increasingly disorganized thinking.

     In the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, for example, a wide-ranging wildness of thinking permeates the landscape of social interactivity. Again, nothing is wrong with being a pseudoscience. Criminology is a good example of that, and it is perfectly okay. As with this discourse, many working investigators of various phenomena are not real-world scientists in the classical sense. Using the "scientific method" of investigative inquiry does not imply that one is knowledgeable in applying science with a science background. However, a high-probability measurement is essential regarding forensic implications and applications. In the schizotypy reference, used here only in the most basic sense, there is a broad scope of uncertainty or ambiguity regarding the reliability of evidentiary perception. Whatever the motivation of the individual adherents, assessment of credentials is necessary. Some observers note that those inclined toward eccentric viewpoints generally need a set template to gauge various phenomena.

     Esoteric ideologies span the spectrum of academia as well as the public mainstream. The need for inevitability, the safe bet of a silver bullet, the standard template, etc., interferes with the search for the truth. Rather than hardcore data-driven efficacy of scientific validation, the masquerade demonstrates tendencies all too easily toward magical thinking. Frequently, by connecting unrelated incidents or attributing a conspiratorial manifestation to a set of circumstances, the quest for evidentiary authentication diverts to hidden agendas. Interpretations become vague reinterpretations of the actual chain of events. To ensure the necessity of confirmation bias and subjective validation, the intentional predisposition elevates ambiguous information to the level of meaningful authenticity. And such is the nature of anomalous mental phenomena.

https://drgonzo1.medium.com/anomalous-mental-phenomenon-amp-classical-criminology-13-f63992dc5f9d