Presently, there are reasons why analysis for the purpose of discerning deception, including propaganda, is becoming more popular.

We are now part of a generation in which free speech is broadly under attack, as words are being given new definitions, and scientific fact is morphing into deception due to human emotion.

This is not simply a phenomena facing the United States, but it is world wide, with the ruling elite seeking to exploit the masses by controlling freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  In many cases, the press, itself, is complicit.  It takes a sober mind to view this carefully.

Next is the denigration of the successful that is part of our generation.  Those who are successful are looked down upon for their success as exploitative, racist, privileged, and are said, en masse, to be ‘stealing’ from others.  This self loathing is not just personal, but national and international.  While countries that did not progress out of the status of “Third World” simply march into wealthy countries and demand money, the wealthy countries not only allow it, but encourage it.  The laws of math are suspended, and there is enough “free” wealth for everyone, Venezuela notwithstanding, as schools have closed so teachers can wait all day on line to buy a loaf of bread.  The successful were targeted in the Marxist ideology (except for athletes and entertainers) saying “you didn’t build this” in institutionalized envy.  The “redistribution of wealth” means forcibly taking it away from the successful, and it wades its way to the colleges where students “complain” about the work load, and wish to run Shakespeare out of the books because his success was not based upon the combination of genius and hard work, but of his skin color.  This, while they remain in lit and warm buildings, without thanks to Thomas Alva Edison and the others who harvested elements of creation into energy.

Next in institutionalized envy is the victim status mentality.  Please keep in mind:  in order to have a victim, you must have a victimizer:  someone, or some group, must be vilified.  Hitler chose the Jews and trumped science when it found, looking under a microscope, that there was no difference between Jewish blood and non Jewish blood.  Today, the victims are those with psychological disorders who are confused about their sex.  To obtain this victim status, someone had to be demonized.

Then there is the courts’ response to all of this:  a continual siding with fraudulent complaint after complaint against the successful business owner.  It has become so popular that it has created an immediate need for professionally trained analysts in both hiring and in protecting companies from the myriad of “victims” who know how to use a few special words, to get a court to grant them money their hands did not earn.

It takes a sober-minded view.

There is the de-criminalization of criminals that also has become popular.  They are not “convicted felons” but “court-involved individuals” who the successful cannot ask them about their criminal record when being hired, says the government, unless the employer is…

the government.

This, too, creates a need for professional analysis.

From major trends to business, to criminal investigations, the work of analysis is needed across the country and across the Western world perhaps as never before.  In simply reading the newspaper, one must continually be alert for propaganda techniques by a ruling elite that wishes to “reeducate” the public.  How much more intense is this when schools refuse to teach children to read, lest a correction impact their emotions in a negative way?  Thus, the indulgence that creates emotionally tyranny.

Statement Analysis is a science that has an element of art to it; especially in conclusions.  Therefore, as such, it warrants corrections in incorrect or even deliberately abused applications:

1. Incorrect Application
2. Incorrect Conclusion
3. Exaggerated Claims
4. Forced Conclusions
5. Errant Principles
6. Damaged Principles
7.  Spurious Claims

Emotions Over ruling reason

The New York Times printed an article quoting the Apostle Paul, in the Book of Romans saying that it teaches that Christians are to put homosexuals to death.

The problem?

Paul listed offenses before God but did not teach that any such should be put to death.

How many people think the New York Times is a reliable source of news for America today?

In another article on the “millions of migrants”, it used listing to show the priority and order with:

“Palestinians, Syrians, Afghanis, etc.”

There are virtually no Palestinian migrants.  Those in Israel who say they are safer there than in Muslim countries are squelched or attacked. They are not fleeing Israel but migrating to it, in the name of their religion, which teaches the killing of all Jews, making a Jewish homeland an insufferable notion.  The article went on to list Africa as the largest movement of people and did not even mention “Palestinians” again in spite of listing them “first” in the lengthy list.  The anti-Israel bias notwithstanding, comments, for the most part, showed that readers saw through the propaganda.

There is the Marxist “guilt by association” technique in which after Islamic terror, someone will say, “Islam does not have a monopoly on religious violence” as a form of deceptive propaganda.  Islam is the only religion that calls for violent conquest, including rape.  Looking at a lone bomber who is a religious fanatic who must, by necessity, go against his religion to commit murder is like walking into a psychiatric ward and seeing a violent red headed male and concluding,

“Red headed males are the most violent of any males! ”

It is this foolish.

Statement Analysis calls for a sober-minded view of life and many people report having an increase in awareness, if not some increase in discernment.

It cannot work without a realistic understanding of human nature; one that is willing to always grow in depth, as human nature is most complex.

Spurious claims may speak for themselves but an easy signal to spot is obsession with a case.  Of recent years, the Madeline McCann case and the murder of Amanda Blackburn likely show the misuse (and sometimes abuse, which is deliberate) of analysis to force a conclusion.

In one case, the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey, a book by Andrew Hodges, “A Mother Gone Bad” randomly assigned meaning to any word, which was arbitrary in practice.  Using this technique, one may say “this” means “that” anytime one chooses. If you know the case, it is interesting to read and some of the leakage may be accurate as the ransom note and the videos/books in the home match.  Yet it is in the application that cannot be repeated objectively, therefore, just as it may ‘hit’ in one area, it is just as likely to ‘miss’ in another:  get me a monkey, a dart board, and a choice of stocks to pick.

There was an example of this in the McCann case where someone claimed to use “Statement Analysis” but only did the same thing in principle:  interpreted what he wished to see within the statement.  Scientific application means repeated tests with repeated expectations.

Gotta concentrate…gotta really concentrate

Hollywood has “instant deception detection” which has become popularized and is more akin to Facebook “psychics” than science.

Those who work as professionals need the truth.  The deeper they go; that is, the further professional study and application go in the professional setting, the more hesitant they are to make claims.  This is a natural protection against error:  An investigator cannot simply arrest someone on a whim or a hunch.  When a team of analysts, including non-law enforcement, work on behalf of law enforcement, their work is going to be put to the rigorous standard of…

life.

This means that the interview will be conducted based upon the analysis, a polygraph administered, and a possible arrest and contestation in court.

The analysis should withstand all the rigorous challenges posed to it, including a strong defense attorney’s attacks.  Truth has a way of forcing itself to the surface.

Random Assignment of Meaning

Jonbenet Ramsey case is another good example.   The book “A Mother Gone Bad” by Andrew Hodges is without principle.  It takes anything, that is any single word, and is interpreted to mean anything the author wishes it to mean.  Perhaps beneath this there is some ‘leakage’ but it is not only random, but it is arbitrary.   It is not statement analysis, which is a principled science; that is, something that is applied repeatedly for the same results.

The best way to view this book is to take its principles, and apply it to any statement, and attempt to make it mean anything you wish:  it will work.

Leakage is subjective and it is only viewed after thorough analysis and only considered a possibility to explore.  It is, ultimately, to raise the question, “Why?” in so much as we need to learn why the subject chose this or that word in his statement.  The “need to learn” presupposes that we already know, even if we have hints or hunches.

In the Blackburn murder, the emotions trump reason and science,  show not simply a lack of discipline, but a reinterpretation of wording and a casting off of principle.  I have been surprised to read how bizarre the denigration of meaningful dialog has gone.

B.  Hollywood and FaceBook

Considering “instant deception detection” worked for Hollywood’s “Lie to Me” TV show, it boomed a large number of “new experts” who took “micro expression” training and can “spot a liar instantly.”

Professionals look at such claims no different than Facebook “psychics” or snake oil salesmen who could never be trusted with investigatory work.  As oft repeated, the scientist who did this research, himself, has said:  He will not even attempt to declare ‘deception indicated’ unless he, himself, conducts the interview.  This is to let us know that (a) he is not going to travel the country to conduct an interview and (b) he has no faith in his ‘system’.  It fails to recognize the intense labor and study that analysts go through.

Like psychics, this too, appeals to those with a deep desire for recognition.

C.  The Number Three

Although it was likely ‘tongue in cheek’ the comment about the Bible being discerned to be deceptive because it uses the number 3 grants me the opportunity to raise my concern about the use, misuse, and even abuse of this “number.” For the opportunity to explain, I am grateful.

Deception is Discerned in Intention 

It is not only folly to think that the Bible authors, representing more than 40 languages and hundred of years, intended to deceive their audiences, but somehow, through time, culture, language and geography, were able to “communicate” this deception.

The “deception” is “caught” because they use the number 3, but that would be a disingenuous and deliberate abuse of a most minor and insignificant principle, thus the correction:

The number three is “the liar’s number” only in one specific application:  Where the deceptive person must choose a  number in which the number 1 seems too small, and the number 4 or 5 just seems too large.  The person, in the midst of deception (even when technically truthful about so much else) chooses “3” as the number, with the exception being the number of drinks offered, when pulled over (“just two, officer.”)

It ends there.

Or, at least it should.

It is speculation.

It is not part of LSI’s SCAN technique and is not permitted to be used in LSI’s training classes.

What is it useful for?

It’s use means that the professional analyst simply takes note of its use and questions if it might be false; nothing more.

There are many times that the number 3 arises in statements because it is truthful; in fact, the use of it truthfully far outweighs the findings of it as false; that is, made up.

What does the ‘analyst’ do when someone is really attacked by 3 men?  Or what does the ‘analyst’ do when the crime was committed at 3 o’clock?

It is quite simple:  it is noted and verified.  Period.  I sometimes feel badly for people when they write that they hesitated because they included the number 3 and did not want to seem deceptive.  I sometimes post a correction, but it is difficult to keep up with.

Yet to seriously make the assertion that the Bible is “deceptive” isn’t Statement Analysis, or reason,  and is deception, itself, and a discredit to any attempt to practice Statement Analysis and could mislead readers.   The greatest minds for 20 centuries have sought to find error in the Bible, so as to make a publication of such, and have not found so.  Yet, this, itself (inerrancy) is not even related to Statement Analysis which teaches:  error is not deception. 

Statement Analysis 101:  Deception is found in intention. 

“Johnny has a red car” is a reliable sentence.  It does not mean it is true; it means that the subject is not attempting to deceive, based upon the language.  To later learn that he has a red car simply points to error, not deception.

 This, then, becomes a claim that men writing from different nationalities, cultures, languages and in different centuries communicated with one another, using the number “3” to deceive readers.

Although this is about misuse of analysis, and not inerrancy, itself, it is more akin to the claims of a “Facebook Psychic” than analysis.

Consider in 1979 when it was popular to say, “Ronald Wilson Reagan, 6, 6, 6, is the antichrist” rather than read a bit of history about Nero, Greek, Latin and even the city of Pompei.  The key here is:

ignorance is easier.  “If it don’t fit, you must acquit” appeals to the masses and sometimes cannot be overcome…or so says, Lizzie Borden, Paul Revere, and Christopher Columbus, as well as so much else in history that has been turned into cartoonish poems or songs to obscure the truth.

D.  Slowing Down the Pace

“You’re lying!  I see you are lying, too!”

A single slip of a verb tense?

One of the most honest and forthcoming investigators I know recounts events, habitually, in the present tense.  His honesty stands out in his resolute refusal to conclude deception without overwhelming proof.  If you were falsely accused, he would be your best friend.  He will self-correct, at the drop of a word, to ensure accuracy.

I listened to his recall of an event of which I knew the facts  and as is his pattern within boundary:  he was both accurate and entirely in the present tense. He relived the event, chalked with emotion of excitement highlighting the major points zealously.  Why?

His excitement was such because his team had just completed analysis and he was startled at the accuracy of their findings; down to little details of which they had no access to.  Even after years of study, he was like a kid at Christmas recounting the specifics.  Where one analyst saw “drugs”, he gave an excited verification.  Where another saw greed, he affirmed the finding of motive, and so on and so on.

Imagine what the Facebook “lie detector” would do with this?  “He just lied.  Everyone is fooled.  I am the only one who knew.” 

 We listen for patterns, deviations from patterns, and statistical reliability, and measure context,  all as data coming together for a conclusion.  It is not something that can be deeply studied or even learned from a blog, or a book.  It needs the element of the surprises that human nature and complexity of language bring.

This “I know when you are lying!”  sounds great and the “instant knowledge” is very appealing but it is also something the professional won’t touch but can only raise eye brows to.

When a reader enters study, he or she generally expresses some level of surprise over just how difficult it is to maintain high levels of concentration over a statement, and how giving into the temptation of “knowing” seems to backfire repeatedly.  Eventually, they learn to “slow down”, put the brakes on, and keep the seatbelt fastened until “the conclusion of the matter” appears.  True, it can be difficult waiting, but here in lies discipline:  you cannot “jump” when a dozen professionals are about you, keeping you in line.  It is a marvelous “safety found in a multitude of counselors.”

Human nature is complex; therefore, human speech is complex and the study of it is complex, howbeit, exciting!

Recently, a detective (who excels in analysis) asked, “Am I seeing the deception of the crime, or is there another deception going on here that I am seeing?”

I could not answer his question.

It warrants much more work.

It warrants hours.

Yes, he conducted the interview, but because of what is on the line (the taking away of a man’s freedom via arrest), he is not going to guess if the “smirk was deception, or a sinus condition” like the “instant knowing” spurious claims hold to, or if his unreliable denial was only unreliable, or was it deception.

It is interesting to listen to the trained remark on some of the above, and how they learn just how much time and dedicated study is warranted.  None claim to know “instant” deception, and even if suspected, would not allow this viewpoint to move ahead of them:  they keep the pace slow deliberately.

The slow, steady and sober-minded maintain and protect their well earned  reputations.

Lie To Me

I have commented on the fascination of micro-expressions and have noted its failure to produce anything of value in discerning deception to the very point of its founder, Paul Ekman, refusing to discern deception even if he possesses the video of the interview which would include the ability to slow down, frame by frame, and pause to study the single micro expression for hours.  He said he would “only” discern deception if he, himself, conducted the interview.  If the instructor, who has dedicated his entire life to micro expression and deception, cannot tell deception in the very means he uses to teach others, why would anyone pay for the training?

Botox might teach them a lesson or two, if not, Xanax will.

He is not going to travel from state to state conducting any interviews for anyone but continues to sell the ‘snake oil training’ of watching a face expression by an actor or actress whiz by and as soon as you can say, “I got 100%” try it on everyone you know.

His books are fascinating lengthy studies but the Hollywood take over has brought his work into question. It is like a man who pretends to be an activist for a movie suddenly finding himself acting in front of the United Nations as an “expert” in some world affair.

He pretended, that’s all.

Once upon a time, we revered medical doctors, scientists, ministers, and lawyers in society, while grown men playing games, or pretending to be someone else, was of interest, but not taken very seriously.

“My lord, I have no right to the airs I carry, for alas, I was, uh, how difficult to acknowledge, a, a, a…a stage actor, my lord and am ashamed of myself.” said Mr. Carson on Downton Abbey.

Knighthood was for courage under fire and racism was hatred based upon race.

Like “psychic ability”, claiming oneself to be an instant “lie detector” is appealing because it makes us “unique” and “gifted” (presupposing a gift giver) and allows us to feel purpose.

It is not truth and it is akin to the “psychic” who’s language does not proceed from experiential memory, and is deceptive.  Even as “Discourse Analysis” grows from years and years of study and implementation, the conclusion of the matter is still of scientific structure.

Whether you are viewing a criminal case, reading the news, or seek higher learning, the ancient “by the sweat of your brow” is neither negated nor suspended in any field of study, whether it be mathematics, chess, or analysis.

Success comes from hard work.

I have seen talent come into training.  Lively minds, vivid imaginations and immediate and early success.

Consider the 7 year old who is taught to play chess and almost instantly beats every adult around him.

Now, take this same 7 year old and compare him to a 21 year old Grandmaster in chess.  To reach this level, the 7 year old, most likely, will need to be taken out of school, and be given to chess study, full time, for the next 14 years to reach the level of Grandmaster, of whom he will now be one of 1522 in the world, according to FIDE, of whom 1489 are male (or feel like male) and 33 are female.

How many other obviously gifted 7 year olds never go on to become a professional?

We see success and think that it came easy for someone else.  It is not so.

We sometimes even enjoy saying “he got everything handed to him” or “school just comes easy to her” without recognizing what sacrifices the successful made to reach their level of competency.  One young gifted female sat alone in her Ivy League school, isolated for being “pro business”, even though it was, reluctant  to admit, successful businessmen and women who built the very building that these special whining snowflakes sit comfortably in, as they tear down their own benefactors.

Some do come to analysis with tangible talent.  They begin breezing through lesson after lesson.

Then comes some more difficult tests; complexity and competing principles, sometimes even colliding together.

At this point, the talented sometimes express surprise.  “It used to come so easy…what has happened to me?”

I am always glad to hear this, in whatever form. Then comes the “iron sharpening iron” of working with other talented analysts in a team setting.

I sometimes say, “Welcome to advanced analysis…” to encourage them now to push forward.  Push forward, they do.

“Yes, there are signals of sensitivity, but we do not know why” and

“Yes, he is deceptive, but the deception appears unrelated to the allegation, we must dig further.”

“Yes, he has a need to explain, here, here and over here.  Does this suggest hyper-sensitivity or could it be…

contamination?”

The student has now just graduated to a new, uncertain, scary but exciting level and is well on his or her way towards psychological profiling, interview strategy and tactics, and…

justice.

I recognize that the fantastic sells.  Yet, it does not take much research into the “Baby Lisa” case to hear national media declare someone “the nation’s leading lie detector” and hear him practice deception while avoiding saying “Deborah Bradley, Lisa’s mom, didn’t cause Lisa’s death” directly.  Even with training, one really can’t lie.