1

Crypto-Criminology – Adventures in the

Pseudosciences
By Randy Gonzalez
 2

Crypto-Criminology – Adventures in the Pseudosciences

By Randy Gonzalez

In view of the modern reaches of social sophistry, particularly emanating from the
seemingly hallowed halls of academia, as well as mass “infotainment”, crypto-
criminology is revisited. Along with the “psychobabble”, otherwise known as invent any
diagnoses you want, and “pollybabble”, aka political corruption, why not venture into the
realm of the pseudosciences. Used here, the assertion made is that there are sciences, and
there are pretenses to “science”. A science refers to that which is systematically a
comprehensive investigation, with testable and predictable results relative to fields such
as anatomy, astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics to site a few examples.
By contrast, a pseudoscience is a reflection of science by way of using scientific
methodology, a process borrowed from natural sciences. Within this sphere of inquiry,
claims, beliefs, practices, religious notions, and so forth cannot be readily accepted as to
that which constitutes serious scientific validation. On the contrary, arguments can be
made convincingly against any claim, and particularly every day in a court of law. For
that which is widely accepted by the scientific community, as say in the forensic sciences,
requires a higher test of substantial provability.
As examples of pseudoscience, criminology, psychology and sociology fall within this
characterization. Others may differ and most likely very offensively. Nonetheless, in
these field, where the phrase “social and behavioral sciences” might be considered
oxymoronic, decades of disagreement are classic. The term “pseudo” means something
looks like or has the appearance of something else, but remains pretentious in reality. By
connecting the term “pseudo” to “science”, and including the aforementioned
philosophies, is not meant to be antagonistic, but instead, practical and realistic.
In a devolving society, as in the United States, part of the problem of critical analysis
and inquiry regarding human behavior, such as criminal behavior, is the arrogance of
adherents to a particular school of thought. Of which, many conclude all the complex
questions regarding human nature are sufficiently answered, absent any room for doubt,
scientific validation or opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, much conjecture has been
accepted across the social mainstream whereby reality is confused with fantasy.
 3

Given contemporary trends in “anti-intellectualism”, in the broad scheme of societal

“infotainment”, it is likely too late to counter the “stupidity factor”. By stupidity, what is
meant here, refers to the ease people accept specious notions tainted by severe cognitive
bias. Stupidity is dull, boring and unimaginative emotional reactivity taken to the most
simplistic level of “anti-thinking”. With aversions to science, and by association a disdain
for critical analysis and evidentiary validation, inferential fallacies devolve to readily
accepted error laden generalizations. Oversimplification with superficial rationalizations,
along with increased interests in superstitions and extremist ideologies, hastens the
regression of the human species’ intentional bent toward extinction.
On that uplifting notation, crypto-criminology is tossed into the social dynamics as
part mockery of the arrogant pretentiousness of psycho babbling, politico obfuscating,
and academic pontificating of alleged “cause-effect” enlightenment. With the mounting
plethora of “experts”, whose bona fides show sketchy experiential sufficiency, the
pseudoscientific realm is filled with many of presumptive expertise. Frauds, scams and
outright con jobs occur daily in every walk of life. Hope springs eternal, the consistent
mantra of the purposefully naïve, and scheming politicos with hidden agendas.
Another part of the provocation of crypto-criminology is relative to the quest of the
nature and understanding of criminality. Human nature has not changed in thousands of
years. For the study of this mysterious phenomenon, many schools of thought exist.
Serious adherents of one viewpoint to another will argue the efficacy of their particular
posturing. Beware of false prophets as they manifest in many forms. Theorists postulate a
number of philosophical reasons regarding criminal behavior. Particularly, in the hunt for
the ultimate answer to the “why” question, simplistic notions are offered.
Unfortunately, human thinking is very complicated, intensely personal, privately
reserved and intimately protected by individual choices. As to the broader scope of
criminology, not unlike many other philosophically speculative endeavors, it is filled
with an array of theoretical formulations. Which is more correct than another? It all
depends what one is willing to believe on either a shallow level, or the deeper reaches of
the darker side of human nature. In the fascinating realm of science versus
pseudoscience, in an age where nearly everything pretends to be a “scientific inquiry”,
evidentiary sufficiency requires close affinity for definitive provability.
 4

Regarding crypto-criminology, another part infers the vast unknown multidimensional

intricacy of the human psyche. The “mind”, as many loosely interprets, or the chemical
processes of the brain, remains an unknown bastion of human individuality. It is, for all
intent and purposes here, the vast “undiscovered country” beyond the reaches of the
human capacity. Dull, boring, regressive and uncreative, the constant flux of the neural
processes offer extraordinary possibilities, so long as a person is willing to insist upon
laborious efforts. Yet, most only desire self-gratification at the lowest spectrum.
Additionally, as in the hunt for mystical creatures in the self-serving realms of
“crypto-zoology”, crypto-criminology reflects the primal desires of those inclined toward
magical thinking. Fairy tales, fantasy adventures, allegory, and so forth, foment around
this depiction of prurient yearnings to bring cognitive bias into reality, absent critical
analysis and profound evidentiary validation. For the observer, and the watcher always
bring bias to his or her observations, every day there are fascinating examples.
Crypto is the hidden, secret and otherwise that which is outside the normal aspects of
serious investigative determination. Such as scientific validity, as accepted widely among
the science community, where evidence sternly prevails, and presentable in a court of
law. In continuation, crypto also refers to that which cannot be discerned to a reasonable
certainty, and to the exclusion of other possible interpretations. For example, fields of
study in academia, like criminology, psychology and sociology, are within the framework
of philosophical and thus not hard science. They are “schools of thought”.
Unfortunately, in an undereducated society, where people take pleasure shunning
science and intellectual achievement, pseudoscience, or philosophical superficiality
supersede wiser courses of enlightenment. In the process of deconstructing, a logical
discourse, by application of logical deduction through scientific validation, cryptic is that
element that remains significantly unknowable by contemporary means. This is where
investigative fun begins and pursues the conjecture of inconclusive speculation.
From the pretentiousness of academic conjecture within the scheme of the alleged
social sciences, to the psychobabble of creative “diagnoses” to market “chemical cures”
for every contrived “mental illness”, crypto-criminology fits in with a variety of human
behavior claims. As such, “crypto-criminogenic” could be viewed as means to promote
the never-ending inquiry into the “why” question.
 5

In the realm of the pseudosciences, there are many answers to the “why” question.
Nonetheless, the simplistic conclusion of one myth after another, as to the individual or
group cause-effect results, remains unanswerable. After all, flawed humans, many
arrogantly self-possessed by the alleged supremacy of their school of thought, think they
have found the “final solution”. Mysteries abound and why not be comfortably cynical
with a strong healthy sense of skepticism. There are no ultimate answers.
Instead, there are theories based on opinions. In court, as mentioned earlier, each side
in an adversarial system argues their theoretical posture. This means, either party could
be right, or wrong, and it depends on who is more believable. A jury, the trier of fact,
makes a determination based on the sufficiency of evidence. All viewpoints ideally get to
debate their perspective. Which one is correct? There is no correct answer.
Some viewpoints are exceptionally insightful, and well-reasoned, while others are
superficial and stupid, reflecting grievous errors of logic, devoid of reason and prone to
dangerous emotional reactivity. As to the investigative pursuit of trying to determine why
people do the things, an unsatisfying conclusion might be, “who knows?” Yet, people
believe they need some kind of mysteriously magical answer to everything. It keeps the
false sense of cosmic security intact, for the illusion of hope springs eternal and good
triumphs over evil. But wait, that conjecture does not offer solutions.
Nonetheless, such antics seldom deflect from the essential instigation to perpetrate
sophomoric assumptions about pretenses to reality. Unfortunately, the leap to illicit
conclusions happens frequently and destructively throughout mainstream society. From
psycho-diagnoses, to “pain killer” pills for every invented ailment of thought, to rat
studies comparing rat brains to human brain, the speculations find demons, aliens and
ghosts in every nook and cranny. Evidentiary proof suffers the override of fantasy.
Moreover, such is the realm of crypto-criminology, to poke the very essence of gonzo
explanations, and refers to the dark, devious and dangerous side of human nature. It is the
strain of humanistic proclivity, which crosses the boundaries of civility into brutality. The
notion remains sticky with the sweaty ooze of arrogance that permeates the haughty halls
of academia. Meanwhile, in the realm of "practical criminology", applicability to the real
world, where human behavior defies profiling, prediction and precise definition, each day
is a test for the sufficiency of evidence. Proof struggles to remove doubt.
 6

Investigative inquiry conducts a stratagem, or a plan of action, designed to ensure a

certainty of speculation based on evidentiary substantiation. Speculative assessment
formulates a behavioral analysis around a hypothesis or theory of the event process. Facts
prove or disprove the conjecture in question. Naturally, a healthy sense of skepticism is
applied to ensure evidence drives the probability closer to a reasonable certainty.
Proving true or false a questionable issue, an illicit artifice of motivation, or a deviant
perpetration requires exceptional utilization of reason across of complexity of logical
deduction. Such an investigation descends to fully explore the depths of human depravity,
to damp gloomy dungeons of mental mayhem, whereby nothing is held back, good, bad
or discouraging. Bias always troubles the self-interest of a particular set of assumptions
relative to the human species. Provability is always in question.
Full disclosure of doubtful reliability circumvents the arrogant desire to be right rather
than found fraudulent. Of course, the pseudosciences are prolific in terms of guesswork
searching for reliable proof. For which, modern science has no useful, effective and
efficient means to explain all the possibilities with regard to human behavior. Eons of
time, through a vast network of interconnecting influences come to bear, down through
centuries of evolutionary processes that provoke the present in one instant.
Nonetheless, myth, magic and metaphor remain illusions constantly present within the
regions of contemporary social discussion. Today, more than ever, across the expanse of
social networking and infotainment, fallacies of inference, reflecting unproven assertions,
based on erroneous anecdotal testimony, claim a sufficiency of pretended evidence.
Typically, in order to assert a claim over a particular perspective, subjective validations
will win the day. While social discourse plays out the fantasies of egregious thinking
errors, media pundits will sensationalize gullible superficiality.
Biases have a way of influencing final interpretation of a given set of circumstances.
At the same time, belief systems similarly affect emotions, which tend to cloud
observations so that the outcome is skewed in terms of absolute reliability. A simple
template could be applied, as observation, tainted by bias, interferes with design or
construct of a particular theory or experiment. Operationally, and eventually in
application, the “cause-effect” continuum slants toward the claimant. Worst case scenario
is when opinions are accepted as unquestioned evidence.
 7

This in turn frequently happens in the social spectrum by way of alleged “mental
health” issues. Many news outlets, talk shows, and 24/7 news reporting automatically
assume any assertion claimed by an alleged expert is unquestioned fact. However, in an
adversarial criminal justice system, both sides of a legal issue get to rebut the other.
Expert opinion evidence can be given judicial notice based the “expert” involved. Later,
the trier of fact gets to consider which argument seemed relevant.
That means, in terms of behavioral manifestations, another can challenge one of
school of thought and the opinion given. On the other hand, in the spooky realm of
“mental illness” or alleged “mental diagnosis”, where real science cannot prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that as such thing exists, opinion unfortunately is easily accepted as
sufficient unchallengeable proof. There are numerous theoretical constructs underlying
many schools of thought that can be contested by an alternative perspective.
Appeals to illegitimate authority, someone’s viewpoint without provability, or
sufficient demonstration of expert forensic credentials, etc., occur daily through social
networks. Social media is rife with sophomoric assertions that fail miserably for lack of
profoundly serious evidence. From academia to commerce and government, “expertise”
should be met with a healthy sense of skepticism. Any time anyone proclaims their
“knowledge” of a particular subject or domain, questions should be asked. Of
importance, would be a background check based on experience.
As mentioned earlier, there are diverse schools of thought, theories and philosophies
relative to human behavior. As such, in academic settings some philosophical
perspectives are assigned to something called the “arts and humanities”, where there are
many adventures in the pseudosciences. These research domains have been called the
“social and behavioral sciences”. And yet, the real sciences are across campus in another
building looking under microscopes. Anyone is free to disagree or argue defensively.
However, no matter what, most people will conveniently accept the deceptions of
anecdotal arguments so long as the effort is not too cumbersome. Absent physiological,
biological or anatomical scientific validation, such does not prevent widespread
dissemination of erroneous and misguided information. In fact, a certain diagnostic
manual, meant for adherents to a particular field of study, warns against using diagnoses
and behavioral descriptors for forensic and court related purposes.
 8

Serious discourse in the modern social media context is devoid of depth by virtue of
evidence driven affirmation. Aided by an overly opinionated news media, atrocious
fallacies of inference subjectively, with an ample amount of mean-spiritedness, stifle
profound analysis of critical social issues. Petty small mindedness with ungenerous
reciprocity for alternative theories distract from attempts for enlightened debate. Given an
atmosphere of adversarial emotionalism, by which some philosophical schools of thought
defensively guard their alleged science basis, little progress is to be made to advance the
realms of human behavioral analysis. Hence, the metaphorical pseudoscience appellation
of “crypto-criminology” is used to advance the realms of speculation.
In one sense, it is the exploration of nebulous nature of human evil and all its inherent
manifestations. In another sense, crypto-criminology seeks to delve into the seemingly
unexplainable motivations as to why people commit crimes. Furthermore, such is the
curiosity to assess behavior, by exploring the eerie landscape of human deviance that
foments criminality. This would especially include the diverse deviations not necessarily
determined unlawful by statutory prohibition.
The search for modern explanations includes consideration of the influence of "gothic
metaphors" in literature, movies and other mass media. As such, "crypto" refers to the
hidden, the secret and the unrevealed. Like the word "gothic", reference is made to the
primitive and primeval notions of human nature. A world of howling psychic
werewolves, dreams of death and demonic influence. That subterranean mindset of
monstrous meanings, vampiric violence and cunning cruelty. With fascination and desire
for the macabre, the bizarre and demonic, people like stories.
Story telling conjures all manner of deception, from academia to the movie theater, a
good stage play, filled with shadowy darkness satiates primal urges. Likewise, in the
depths of human purposes, free willed gratifications, there is no limit on the range of
individual and group debauchery. For crypto-criminology there are many possibilities for
philosophical speculation interpreted as “scientific” inquiry. And yet, the confusion stems
from the self-centered motivations of the highly opinionated ethically challenged
“experts” who fog the distinction between science and philosophy. When it comes to
human behavior, anything is possible. As such, an appropriate metaphor to the
appeasement of no one, crypto-criminology is an adventure in pseudo-science.