Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Crystal Rogers : Seeking Inadvertent Release of Information

Crystal Rogers is still missing, with police quiet on the investigation.  If a lengthy non-contaiminating  interview of Brooks Houck was done, the transcripts likely hold valuable information into what happened and where her remains may be found.  

What is the difference between interviewing an actual innocent and interviewing one with guilt?

Brooks Houck's brother, Nick Houck, was suspended with pay on September 9th, 2015, from the Bardstown police department, but on September 24th, 2015, this status was changed to "suspended without pay."

Bardstown PD has not revealed why he was originally suspended, nor the cause of the change of status. 

Crystal, a mother of five, went missing on the 4th of July.  Her fiance, Brooks Houck, went on the Nancy Grace Show where he was indicated for deception. 

“All of my efforts in searching for her have been done behind the scenes with the Nelson County Sheriff’s Office." 

“I’ve been 100% completely honest with everyone. I’ve been 100% cooperative in everything that that has been asked of me. I’ve not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance, an attorney of any nature. I’m 100% completely innocent in this and I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again,”

There are important elements within this statement to note: 

1.  The word "with" between people (departments are made up of people) indicate distance. What causes the distance, however, is not always known, nor nefarious.  It could be geographical, or strategic. At the time of this statement, he reveals here that the psychological distance has to do with information.  

"I've been 100% completely honest with everyone."

The psychological distancing in his language has to do with his being "honest", which now is viewed:  

2.  "100% completely honest" is to take "honesty" and make it sensitive. 

a.  His "honesty" is made sensitive by the word "completely";
b.  His "complete honesty" is then made sensitive, itself, by the addition of "100%"

What makes "honesty" so sensitive?

Once we add in percentages, there should be no change in language, and if one is "100% honest", there is no element of dishonesty.  To add "completely" to the percentage, itself, now tells us that in his mind his need to persuade is desperate.  

Not only is his "honesty" an issue, but is his cooperation.  Both of these should be taken together and not separated as it shows:

He understands that "cooperation" requires "honesty"; so we first note that his level of "honesty" is sensitive to him, but so is his cooperation: 

3.  His "cooperation" is also sensitive, with "100%" sensitivity.  

Now we know that his "honesty" is "sensitive; his cooperation is "sensitive" but there is a third element that Houcks gives away as also "sensitive" to him:  

It is his "innocence" is also "sensitive" in his language.  

4.  His "innocence" is sensitive, but not like his "cooperation" but like his "honesty."

Please note that he is:

"100% completely honest" and
"100% completely innocent" but only 
"100% cooperative", which is different than honesty and innocence. 

What caused the reduction?  What caused it to be 'less' sensitive in his language?

The context answers the question:  

In context, he answers the question:  "I am 100% cooperative in everything that has been asked of me."

This is to avoid his pattern of "100% completely cooperative" or to say: 

His cooperation has been limited to what they have asked of him, yet he has things he knows they have not asked of him. 

This is still not to say he "did it" but that there are things he may be waiting to be asked about. 

The Reliable Denial contains 3 elements and 3 elements only.  If there are 2, or if there are 4, it is no longer reliable.  If it comes after time, as in preparation, or not in the free editing process, it is no longer "reliable."  This means that one who simply reads a prepared statement that says, "I did not kill my fiancĂ©, Crystal" is not speaking freely.  In fact, this is something that the innocent (de facto, not simply judicial) say early, and often, if necessary.  It is the basis of their argument, front and center in their interview. 

All other elements within the interview are but tangents and of lesser importance.  This is why some have an 'intuitive' understanding of actual innocence within the interview.  The innocent will not delay, parse words, or make excuses. 

When the innocent are confronted with a piece of evidence that makes them appear guilty, they are often dismissive in the interview and may even overtly or subtly insult the investigator because the investigator is in the wrong, and there is no debate, within the mind of the subject.  The interview can even get testy with, "you need a new job" attitude towards the investigator.  It is an immovable wall from which any and every point in the interview falls back to, in the mind (and language) of the subject. 

Often, a police officer who has completed an interview will say, "Are you kidding me?  This guy did nothing but deny it and I have nothing!"

I say, "Let's find out.  You may have a report where you write that in more than 2 hours, the subject did not deny..."

This is sometimes met with more than just gentle skepticism.  

If we are fortunate enough to get transcripts, the proof will come, but it will take hours.  Instead, I view the tape of the lengthy interview, with pen in hand and after more than 2 hours I report back:

"Not once did the subject tell you he didn't do it."

When the transcripts are produced, it is all the easier.  

Not only am I able to show that no Reliable Denial exists, but the subject has used a half-dozen unreliable denials in its stead, simply to avoid the internal stress of an outright lie.

Objection:  Sociopathic killers don't have a conscience therefore, they don't feel this internal stress you are talking about. 

Answer:  Everyone, including true sociopaths, feel the internal stress of a direct fabrication.  This is the centerpiece of all interview and interrogation.  The answers are processed in the brain in less than a micro second of time with the brain choosing the words, the verb tenses, the syntax, and the order all in an almost instantaneous measurement of time.  
When one goes to answer and deceive, going into this memory bank of words causes them to have a 'halt' or 'delay' in time processing as they attempt to avoid self implication. 

This pause in time is the main cause of stress, not the conscience.  The conscience is a useful tool, but it is secondary in implementation of technique by the interview. 

 We do not rely on the conscience of a criminal mind to guide us. 

Within the transcripts of any lengthy interview by Brooks Houck may lay the inadvertent release of information on not only what happened to Crystal, but where her remains may be found.  This is simply because when he went into his personal dictionary, with the average of 25,000 words, he had to choose which words to use, and which to withhold, or even suppress, and then order the words, themselves, and due to such a brief time period of choosing these words, as he goes into his memory, words 'leak' out that show exactly what he was thinking of, as he attempted to deceive.  

Finally in his statement on national television, he gave us his motive in life.  Would it be to find his missing fiancĂ© and mother of his child?

We all give ourselves away.  We do what we believe.  

5.  Note his goal is not to find her, but to "clean" his name:   

 I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again,”

Here we see his motive.  

Police have not told the public why they suspended his bother, nor why they changed the status of the suspension.  The silence tells the public that it is related to Crystal's disappearance and they are wise to protect the information now, while they continue to search for Crystal. 

They would be wise to have not only a highly trained analyst go over the transcripts with a fine comb, but to have one with much experience in this, who understands the inadvertent release of information, including what signals suppression versus a lesser stressed withholding.  The subtle nature of the inadvertent release of information is such that it raises questions, not answers, and is subjective, not objective, and the questions can be then put to the investigators, themselves, as a team, or to even family that is known to be cooperating with the investigation.  This "cooperation", in context, is specifically family that will not go to the press.  The information cannot be shared with potential defense attorneys who will derail the investigation before answers are found.

Eventually, the list of questions can be posed in the re-interview of the subject, himself.  

Just as Houck gave much information when he spoke on national television, he likely gave much more to police, if the interview was conducted in a non-contaminating manner, as he sought to not only press his case for innocence, but to persuade police as to his cooperation.  

What he learned from his brother, or if his brother gave any assistance to him, including law enforcement's strategy, internal thinking, and so on, only compounds the tragedy that is unfolding for the family, children, parents, friends, and community.  

This is one of the best tools for Cold Cases to use. 

Many cold cases have the answers within them, including confessions by pronouns.  

Arch of Triumph Reported Destroyed

The ancient "Arch de Triumph" has been reportedly blown up, and destroyed by Islamic warriors, reports from Palmyra stated. It is not a report widely seen through main stream media.

This is an example of "what we believe; we do" on one hand, with deception via missing information on the other, as seen in the reporting of media outlets closely tied to governments.

You should believe what one says unless they give you reason not to.  These are those faithful to their ideology, which is in writing.

Why are these ancient symbols of past cultures destroyed?

The Koran teaches that when Islam spreads by immigration, they will come upon lands that were without Allah and not developed, and the ruins will be testimony to not following the Koran, so when they come upon beautiful buildings, or remnants of advanced cultures, it proves the Koran false, so they destroy the landmarks.

It is why the Twin Towers in New York were targeted, and why the Eiffel tower will be a target as the Islamic population grows in France and integration continues to fail.  In Sweden, social workers with years of experience in integration report that the ideology leads them to believe that the free money is "owed" to them, and being forced to get a job is "punishment" as the supremacy thinking fuels victim status rage.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Rainn Peterson: Child of Neglect

Negligence has serious consequences.

"Look how mature she is!" the mother boasts, as my stomach cringes and I leap to my feet to intervene.

The mother was boasting on how her 2 year old made her own breakfast.

It was an oft-repeated scenario.

When Brandi Peterson told the news that her daughter would go with anyone, including strangers, it signaled acute neglect, as the child did not have the loving bod that creates an element of natural and protective stranger anxiety, and likely had been passed around a great deal in her young life.

Now we learn that she has been found alive, about a mile from her great parents home, of whom had custody of her.

Why didn't the mother have custody?
Why didn't the father?
Why didn't the maternal grandparents have custody?
Why didn't the paternal grandparents have custody?

What caused custody to go all the way to great grandparents?  How much energy would a great grandparent have, to keep up with a toddler?

We have a lot of unanswered questions in this story but the common theme beneath it is neglect.

From News 21:

What seemed like a happy ending to the disappearance of a Trumbull County toddler hasn't been so happy for the child's mother.
Brandi Peterson told 21 News Reporter Lindsay McCoy on Monday that she has not been allowed to see
 her daughter Rainn since she was found in a field Sunday evening

A lone member of the search party on a four-wheeler found the the two-year-old alive but cold, about a mile from
her great grandparents home where she had last been seen nearly 48 hours earlier.

Since then, Rainn Peterson has been in St. Joseph Hospital in Warren where she is being treated for cuts, scrapes, dehydration and low body temperature.

Her mom says she has yet to see her daughter in the hospital

But Brandi Peterson says she has heard from Trumbull County Children's Services.

"They are taking custody of my daughter until the investigation is over. That's very frustrating. It's very upsetting because
she was at my grandparents house when she went missing,"said the mom. "I was not there. I passed my polygraph test.
 I cooperated with the police a hundred percent."

 The mom says that since she keeps hearing that there are no signs of foul play. “Then why can't I see her?” asked Peterson

Brandi Peterson says investigators search her home Sunday night, but took nothing from the house.

21 News contacted Trumbull County Children's Services who told Lindsay that they are attempting to arrange a meeting between mother and daughter.
Lindsay McCoy will have more on this story tonight on 21 News 6 p.m.
--- Mother statement interview reporter Baby missing- she sharing / what happened:  https://youtu.be/Ax06dIR4h3c

Training Human Resources for Hiring

Human Resource professionals, like police officers and school teachers, are underpaid.


They do far more than their pay scale shows and a good one is worth his or her own weight in gold. For the one-hundred solid employees they hired, who work honestly, little or no credit or recognition is given.  For the one of the one-hundred who files the fraudulent claim, the HR professionals is blamed. That is not easy to bear up under.

In helping HR hire the best and brightest, we begin in the "negative"; that is, what is in the negative outweighs in importance, that which is stated in the positive.  The "thou shalt nots" provoke more internal reaction than the "thou shalts" in life.

                                                       "Who hired this idiot?"

This is what comes after the debacle that has hurt the company or the department.  How did this troublemaker, racist, thief, liar, whopping moron, get past the interview process?

When you conduct an interview, it is a learning lesson.  What you learn in the interview about yourself  is far more than just what you learned about the interviewee, including if analysis gave you the "missing information" you sought.

Even if you flagged the language as signals of deception, followed up in the interview process, and were able to effectively discern that this potential hire could have ended up costing my company a great deal of time, money, stress and reputation damage, you must remember:

1.  What did the interviewee teach you?
2.  You will not get credit for that which does not happen.

One of the frustrations of law enforcement anti-terrorism prevention is success.  When a counter-terrorism expert has successfully uncovered a suspected plot, there is not always a splash of news, and this is for good reason:  it would only signal to other terrorists the nature of the work.

Therefore, should an agency successfully save the lives of thousands, through scores of foiled terrorism plots, over the course of a year, it is, perhaps, that no public knowledge of such will ever exist.

If you foiled 99 plots, which each plot aimed at killing 100 people, making for almost 10,000 lives saved, and one plot is not derailed, failure is all the public knows.

When a company is running smoothly, it is only the most astute and caring of business owners or leadership that will recognize, "no news is good news" and recognize and reward HR's hiring record. This is especially true in positions of high turnover; entry level jobs that are either stepping stones to other positions, or those where low pay and high stress combine for the turn over.  These are the most vulnerable positions for trouble.

We train HR professionals, first, in lie detection.  They learn to analyze statements and become good at it.  The formal training requires much practice and the professional is urged to train in a formal, monthly manner, for 24 months.  If this is combined with regular practice, this professional is going to be very good at analysis.  He or she will now be of even greater value to the company, but the resume now holds greater value, as well.

Those who complete this 2 year study are given special certification in advanced analysis saying so, and can, in any job interview, demonstrate this prowess in "getting to the truth."

When the basics of analysis is established, the HR professional (who's duties often include internal investigations.  If this is not part of the job description, and the company simply allows law enforcement to investigate, this is a major mistake and something I address directly with ownership or upper level management. A company, small or large, should always investigate any and every claim, and keep a good written record of the investigation, including all the interviews, and freely share this information with law enforcement (as well as their own attorneys, unless the attorneys have a very strong reason not to; usually in very limited and rare cases) as it creates good will, facilitates the flow of information, and will get to the satisfactory results that honest, hard working companies want.

Few people want to see a fraud get away with pilfering from a company.

Yet in the hiring, the trained professional recognizes that potential employees will tell you exactly who they are, and what they want. 

"I am outgoing, hardworking and diligent. I multitask well.  I learn quickly and do not require repeated directions.  I am very punctual."

Here is a statement that the analyst should consider that if the question was the open-ended, "Tell me about yourself" (in some manner), the Interviewer has permitted the interviewee to choose his own wording.

When one begins with the pronoun "I", and continues with it, consistently, it indicates that the applicant believes his own words.

Now remember:  each one of us has a personal subjective dictionary.  This person has said,

"I am outgoing" first.

Is this a sales job?

Or, is it a record-keeping job with little interaction with others?

When the person began with "I", it is a strong signal of psychological ownership of the statement.  In other words, it is likely to be reliable.

This does not mean "accurate."

It means the person believes he is outgoing and it is only if his personal, internal subjective understanding of "outgoing" matches yours, as the representative of your company, that would make it fit.  We do not know his reference point for what "outgoing" means.  He believes what he says, and is not attempting to deceive you, which is what makes it "reliable."  You must learn if it is "accurate."

The pronoun "I" was used, without sensitivity, regarding:

a.  outgoing
b.  hardworking
c.  diligent

Before we rush to "dropped pronouns", we consider the 'flow' in context.  True, some will say, "I am outgoing and I am hardworking and I am diligent", but this is to lengthen, unnecessarily a sentence.  The additional and awkward emphasis, therefore, would have to be explored.  This is a judgement call that only comes from doing many statements and job interviews.  Often, the older the HR professional, the better, just as we say, "the more trained the better"; unless the older is immovable and has stopped growing.  This is readily seen in the experienced HR (and detective) who has the attitude of "been there; done that" and cannot, nor will not, learn anything new.

An investigator once deliberately skipped mandatory training and could not be assigned a case without it.

He began with a statement about not being notified, which was an outright fabrication.  I showed him his notification and receipt of the same.  He then said he did not "recall" the date and apologized.  I then countered with a statement from a co-worker to the contrary, where he told the co-worker he would not waste his time on such.

He then, cornered by his own lies, did what all liars do:  he went on the offensive.

I said, "Sir, this is the first time in our conversation that we are in agreement. "

He was off the job a few months later.  Had I been inclined to "game the system" under him, his ego would have prevented him from catching me in the interview.

Back to our sample:

The pronoun "I" was used, without sensitivity, regarding:

a.  outgoing
b.  hardworking
c.  diligent
d.  multi task well
e.  learn quickly

These are all given from the pronoun "I", making them reliable, and they are in the "positive" and without any qualifier. We note the order as speaking to priority.  This priority is unknown:  is it a priority of what he possesses? Is it a priority of the company?  Does he think that given this position, that "outgoing" is the most important element?  The interview will uncover why it is listed as it is.


He gives us this "in the negative", increasing its importance:

"I am outgoing, hardworking and diligent. I multitask well.  I learn quickly and do not require repeated directions.  I am very punctual."

f.  "do not require..." tells us of what he does not need.  To him, this is very important; therefore, we are going to explore it.

We will learn why.

This is where you must be open minded.

Did he work in a situation where he had subordinates that drove him crazy by repeated questions?  Did he work for an impatient boss who blew his top if clarification was needed?
Is he the type of person who moves quickly, and hates being slowed down by needless chatter?
Does this position prosper by such?

And so on...

You know better than me as you know the job.

Next note:
"I am very punctual" is the first time he gave an indication of sensitivity with the adverb, "very" used.

g.  "very punctual"

The interview will learn why this is given the additional word (showing effort) making being "punctual" a sensitive topic to him.

Again:  be open minded!

Some possible reasons why the word "very" came in here:

1.  You call his supervisor for reference.  The supervisor says, "I can only confirm that he worked here..." but you are trained otherwise and get the information you need:

He was chronically late; written up, and drove his co-workers crazy because it threw them off schedule.

2.  As a supervisor, he was dealing with many late employees and found that chronic lateness and unpreparedness were closely related.

3.  As an employee, those around him were often late, but never disciplined and he often started work alone, and it bothered him.

4.  He is recently divorced from a woman who had a habit of lateness, which caused him embarrassment.

5.  He was late for his last job interview and lost his dream job opportunity because of it.

6.  When younger, he was chronically late and was ripped by a superior, and really learned a lesson and prides himself on being onetime.

7.  He considers punctuality lowest on his priority list because:

a.  no one should be late
b.  he thinks the job has open hours (some do)
c.  he thinks he is so important that he should make his own hours
d.  (enter your own answers based on other interviews)

This applicant has some need to persuade about punctuality, as he has emphasized it.  It may seem minor to some, but every analyst knows that when a series of statements are made, and there is an uniformity about them that is suddenly changed, there is always an important reason.

In the above statement, we have strength as seen in the use of the pronoun "I" and in the lack of qualifiers.  We then have a change to include the word "very" yet it comes at the end of the list.

If I were to guess and "give odds" on what it is, I would not be surprised if this applicant was punctual, but worked alongside of others who did not take it as seriously as he did.  I would look to see if he was early for the interview, appeared well dressed and prepared, and throw him a few curveballs to keep him "off script" (this has to do with order of questions in trainings) and provoke memory of working at a position previously.

Without specific training, the indicators of deception, which, if missed, means greatly increasing the risk to your company and you being asked rhetorically, "Who hired this mess?" after you have hired so many qualified content hard working employees, is thrown at you.

If your company will host a training, your company receives a discount.  If you can take individual training, it is done at your pace, but support is also offered.

The Analytical Interview training is done after the initial analysis training, and is videotaped for review by you, and will sharpen your skills.  It is not always easy to watch, but it will advance the course of learning greatly.  Maine's "Muskie Institute" did this with their "Legally Sound Interviewing" in which they put students through a nightmare of attorneys barking at them each time they asked a leading question or did not pick up on a particular word given.  It was not easy watching mistakes over a big screen, but through this emotional/intellectual impact, along with repetition and eventually encouragement, these attorneys did a terrific job of getting Interviewers to follow patterns that gained information without interpretation.  We mimic this in our training.

                                   See HYATT ANALYSIS and contact us on how you can get started.

The analysis training is uniformed, but the interview training is specifically tailored for your needs.  We use the analysis to uncover not only the deceptive, but those who have a propensity towards violence, and how law enforcement must seek well balanced employees, as well as those who come to a business looking to be hired for reasons of agenda that do not match the goals of the company.

Once formal training is complete, you are eligible to join in the monthly, intense training, of which I will soon update here at the analysis blog.


Saturday, October 3, 2015

Missing 2 Year Old Rainn Peterson

Please note that there are some issues here. 
Note that the mother says the 2 year old will go with anyone, including strangers.  This is often the boasting that we hear that suggests neglect.  An appropriate level of stranger anxiety is expected in 2 year olds.  Those of neglect can develop weak and superficial attachments when left in the care of many different people and will go with anyone, without fear.  This is a potential result of neglect on the part of the parents.
There may be generational neglect in this family.  
NEW BLOOMFIELD, OH – Authorities are searching for a missing toddler in Trumbull County after the girl wandered off Friday evening.
Rainn Peterson, two-years-old, was reported missing by her great-grandparents on Friday at 7:30 p.m.
She was last seen at 7759 State Route 45 in New Bloomfield wearing a purple long-sleeved shirt with snowflake sequins, gray pants, and multicolored pink and lime green shoes.
Trumbull County Sheriff Thomas Altiere tells WKYC that Peterson and two other siblings, ages three and four, were playing inside the house earlier Friday night. The siblings told Trumbull County Sheriffs that was the last time they saw Peterson.
The search is still going on as of Saturday afternoon. "We're looking everywhere. We're not putting a limit on the search. We will keep searching until we find her," Sheriff Altiere told WKYC's Alyssa Raymond on the scene.

Police Chief and Mayor call on the community to help to bring an end to the pattern of violenceWKYC
Peterson has brown shoulder length hair, brown eyes, and 3’0” tall.
Brandi Peterson, the mother of missing 2-year-old Rainn Peterson, spoke Saturday afternoon with WKYC and told us that she was out with her boyfriend when her grandparents called and said that the toddler had gone missing.
The grandparents had been watching the three children while the mother was moving into her new apartment
Peterson was not wearing any shoes or a coat when she vanished from the grandparents’ home.
The mother tells us that the grandmother was cooking in the kitchen and the three children were downstairs with the grandfather. The missing toddler went upstairs and went missing a short time after.
Trumbull County Sheriff's Department has been aided by the FBI, Ashtabula County Sheriffs, Howland Township Police, Niles Police, K-9 units from Columbus and the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation as well as volunteers.
Anyone with information on the missing toddler is asked to please call the Trumbull County Dispatch Center at (330)-675-2730.

Agenda Hiring: Social Justice Warriors

In working to design job applications and training Human Resource professionals in interviewing, lie detection is paramount. If they catch a deceptive person, statistics tell us:  they will save the company money and heartache.

If 4 of every 10 applicants intends theft of some form, it is not likely that this statistic includes the myriad of thievery practiced by professional "victims" today; who seek to game the system by fraudulent claims of injury, harassment, and so on.  For each "victim", there is a cost that will "heal" their woes and the business owner is tagged, even in fraudulent cases, to bear that cost.

We use analysis to train HR professionals to not only "weed out" the deceptive, but in "content analysis."

Content analysis is the jewel of information, born of intense training and hard work.  It is what we glean well beyond the polygraph.

"Why would you like to work for us?" seems like a silly question, but one in which we always seek to learn if the applicant has an agenda other than the norm, for applying for a job.  

There are two basic reasons why someone is seeking employment:

1.  Earning Money for Provision
2.  Satisfaction from task completion and a job well done.

When someone has a motive other than these two (and their close relatives), it is a red flag that warns you that the person is going to bring harm to you.

The most common agendas include political and sexual agendas, which I have covered and will cover in future articles.  Lesser ones include corporate espionage, competition, and so on, but are rare and more limited to certain fields.

Common agendas include those who plan, at the time of the interview, to find a way to separate the company from its money outside of legitimate work. 

There will always be those who are resume building (a close relative of our two basic motives), but what about someone who deliberately plans to...

"fall on the job"?  These are far more numerous than most recognize.

"claim harassment" or "discrimination" of some element ?  These are usually above average intelligence but will reveal this in the interview process.

"claim victimization" of some form?  This is often directed at an individual.

Some have been "counseled" to seek employment and not disclose a substance abuse issue, just long enough to put the company on the hook for rehabilitation costs, which could be $15,000 and upwards.

Some seek employment just long enough to get unemployment.  Some of these have admitted being advised to do this by government workers.

For any of these, the priority can be revealed, as all priorities can be, through the interview process which should include a written statement for both analysis, and the subsequent interview.

Here is a new popular rising star:  The social justice warrior.

Hire a social justice warrior and simply count the days until the "event" takes place.


What event?

Question:  What is the one thing a social justice warrior needs more than anything else?

Answer:   An event involving their social angle.

If someone is very public about discrimination based upon race, how long will it be until this person is either "discriminated against" or happens to "witness" a discriminatory event?

This is where we often find the one, a champion against prejudices, suddenly and "surprisingly" finding himself or herself in, can you guess,

a situation in which the very issue they champion, has happened to them!

It is an example of "fake hate" and about the worst thing imaginable is now likely to happen to you if you hire the "social justice warrior":

They will create an accusation that suits their own agenda.

I have had HR professionals tell me that in the interview process, they have had some people raise the issue of sex only to be told,

"We are a non-discriminatory company and do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sexual..." which is not a sufficient answer to the "social justice warrior."

HR's have told me, "He is waiting for me to say something so he can run to his lawyer!"

I once interviewed a man who kept bringing up sexuality, of which I gave a response similar to the one above.

During the interview, he asked to be excused as he said, "I am unable to compose myself" and left the interview room crying.

He came back in a few minutes later and the interview continued.  He said things like, "I'm sure you won't hold this against me" and "I'm sure you understand what it means to be discriminated against..."

None of which I would answer.  It was a compelling performance and I knew not to be without a witness in this interview.

I asked a manager from the company to come in, saying that the manager may have some questions, too, asking, "Would you mind?" to which he said, "Oh, not at all!"

 I returned to questions:

"You said you just moved here from southern California.  What did you do there?"

He said, "I was a waiter."

Bingo.  There was my answer.  No male, 18-30 is a waiter in southern California.

"What else did you do besides waiting tables?"

I knew.

He was an actor.  Hence, the performance during the interview.  I knew that when he was not offered a job, he would demand to know the reason why not and may claim discrimination.  I used our "scoring system" which is quite useful and eventually, the company offered the position to one who had scored significantly higher.

 I carefully documented his answers for the company, often reading back to him his own quotes.  I offered him water, or, if needed, another break.  I asked him if he was comfortable.  I knew why he was there and what he was up to.   He was looking for an easy mark.

Someone with an agenda, or one who views himself or herself as a "victim" in life, is going to import trouble:

They will claim to be a victim when it is you, the business owner, or you, the Human Resources professional, who is actually the victim.

Another modern twist is the social services agenda in which someone in social services has advised the applicant, "if you want to keep your benefits, you have to apply for a job but if you get hired you are going to lose..." and they enter in with the intent on sabotaging the interview.  This is fine, as you do not want someone who does not want to work but beware:  those who game the system can be clever and may seek to file a complaint against you for not hiring them.  Care to go up against a "poor, single mom who just wants to work while you, the wealthy, cold hearted capitalist just wants to keep her down" scenario?  It is not pleasant.

There are two very strong motivations for employment:

1.  Money
2.  Emotional satisfaction for completion

"Tell me about yourself" is a great way to get to motive.

As humans, we need to survive. This means provision.  It is, therefore, a rudimentary element of satisfaction when we have provided for ourselves, and an even intensified emotion when we provide for loved ones.  Applicants seeking real employment often begin with their families.  They need money.  This is good.

I once had an applicant boast how she worked for Walmart where she, an anti-gun advocate, removed all of the hunting magazines, herself, from their shelves, and carefully put them in the stock room.

I asked, "Were you concerned about getting in trouble?"

She said, "No.  It takes courage today to stand up for what you believe in."

Me:  "What would you say if I told you I was an avid hunter?"

I'm not. Eventually, I told her that I was not.  She was initially stunned into silence, but then went into her martyr speak, which is a rebel looking for a cause.

Emotional Intelligence, as seen in self awareness:  very low.
Agenda driven:  very high
Risk:    very high
Reward:  very low

It is likely that this applicant would find someway to get herself the  attention she craves and it will be at the cost of some company's well being.  The stance she must take will find something to protest.  It depends on the job, but she must be noticed and she must be the center of attention and has a desperate need for relevancy so much so that it drives her.  Her motive is self driven, and not provision for her family, for example.

Most agenda driven applicants are not this easy to spot.  Analysis guides the questions.

Some business owners feel a deep seated emotional satisfaction for the provision of their employees and their dependents, in a special, unique way. 

In interviewing business owners, I have found that some of them feel the weight of decision making upon their shoulders because they know:  the decision I make here could impact the lives of my employees, their spouses, and their children.

These are special people.

They are often above average intelligence, gifted, and take personal risk with their own money.  They feel a responsibility to their employees, therefore, those of whom they hire are those of whom they hold a certain level of trust for, almost as if they are joining the family.  

This is especially true towards the person or persons hired who are responsible for hiring, as well as those who the business owner personally promotes.  It is not that the low level employee is a family member, which is why I wrote "almost" in the sentence above.

Small business owners often care a great deal more for their employees than the employees are aware of.

The small business owner often puts his own money, including mortgaging his own home, as well as his or her family name on the line, complete with the reputation the family has in the community.  It is anything but impersonal.

When interviewing small business owners over the years, I have learned this natural consequence of the concern they have:

Theft is very personal. 

When an employee steals from them, they often feel personally betrayed.  When someone files a fraudulent claim against them, or against one of their employees, there is the costs involved:

*Cost of hiring attorneys
*Cost of insurance
*Cost of settlements
*Cost of unemployment payments
*Cost of the loss of time

But there is also the cost of stress and the personal feeling of being attacked.  This can impact his or her health and family.

When, for example, a business owner runs a restaurant, the greeting the employees give, at the door, is a reflection of the owner. This is how owners often think.

Even when the business grows, the decisions become even more heavily weighted.

They are counting on Human Resources professionals to protect their investment, their employees, and even their name.

The one who considers himself or herself a "social justice warrior" will, one way or another, be involved in an "incident" that is the precise topic of their protest.

Hire someone with an agenda other than earning money and personal satisfaction and you run the risk of importing trouble of unforeseen consequence to your company.

For formal training opportunities for lie detection, content analysis and interviewing,  please see Hyatt Analysis

Friday, October 2, 2015

Lie Detection in Hiring: Sportsmanship, Language and Hiring

Sports are a marvelous tool to build leadership, face competition, and to enhance sportsmanship.  Sports teaches the rewards of effort, help boys and girls push their limits, and teach natural consequence of hard work:  victory.

In short, sports, like other endeavors for children which require effort, skill, and development, are essential to survive, and even thrive in a competitive world.  It also allows these human traits to advance technology and civilization.

For the HR professional, in business and in law enforcement, the expressions used in the application and interview process are crucial in seeking to hire the best and brightest.  Yet, there is also a strong caveat that must be considered.

Listen to the language.

Those from the sports world often use certain expressions including some I have both heard, and asked follow up questions from:

"I like to tackle challenges"
"In the argument, I took her right to the ground."
"I am a team player."
"In my career, I hit the ground running with my first job..."

Sports, and competition in general (which can include such school activities as band, orchestra, debate, chess, math, and so on...where competition is front and center) helps mold future employees who learn from experiences in sports, what hard work and effort may produce. 

An ancient example:

In ancient military, most combat was hand to hand.  This is brutally frightening.  Men would grow long beards, wild hair, and use markings to instill various forms of fear to the enemy. Even children recognize a form of 'paternal terror' and 'paternal wisdom' from close proximity to long beards.  

When an ancient warrior was significantly taller than the norm, he stood out and strategy could be produced centering upon him.  (It is interesting to read studies on promotions and height, in business today).  

The ancient Philistines had Goliath of Gath (and his brothers) who were "Shaquile O'neil" sized warriors surrounded by fierce, and also large soldiers.  They kept ancient Israel's warriors in fear. 

Saul, king of Israel, stood "head and shoulders" taller than the rest around him, yet even he would not face Goliath, who, morning by morning, approached the Israeli army, and shouted curses and insults at them.  

David, the boy with the harp and sweet voice, could stand no more and said, "I will fight him."

His brothers were enraged and must have considered how they would explain to their father why they let their little brother, a shepherd boy, be cut in half in a show fight for the Philistines' entertainment.  David, however, resisted their arguments and we are given insight into David's thinking, which is key for understanding:

David thought to himself:  'there was a time when I was out watching my father's sheep at night, with my staff and slingshot, when a mountain lion came and grabbed a sheep.'  A hungry mountain lion is more powerful than 5 grown men, but instead of running, David attacked it, and freed the sheep, saving his father a serious loss of revenue. 

David then reminisced again.  'There was that other time when a bear attacked and I fought it, too, and God delivered it into my hands.  This Philistine is going down!'

With deadly accuracy, in a tiny 12 year old boy going one on one with Shaquile, David's slingshot landed the smooth stone just beneath the massive armor, concussing the giant to the ground.  Israel's army, encouraged by this 'miracle' (a miracle being a "suspension of nature", which is was not), went on a major offensive against the enemy and on to a great victory. 

                                                         How did David do it?

This is an important formula for success. 

How did David handle the challenge?

He did so by using his past experiences, and how not only his skills, once put to the test, and then again, to the point where he could draw upon the hours and hours of lonely practice with the sling shot, and then the two major tests; tests he could have failed.  Competition had not only sharpened his skills:

Competition sharpened his confidence.

David used his experiences to translate into confidence, which means heightened awareness and skill due to increased hormonal response.  History was his servant and friend.  

HR professionals should listen carefully to the question, "Tell me about yourself" not only with the training to pick up specific words, but to listen to the references used.  Did the applicant address challenges faced growing up, which is far more important than the proverbial answer about facing a challenge in his or her most recent employment.  Childhood creates the adult.  See the boy, see the man; see the girl, see the woman. 

future sensitivity trainer 
We always arm ourselves with a specific defense against theft in HR interviewing, but we also arm ourselves to pick out those who will be likely able to meet unknown and unpredictable challenges.  

Competition, which must include testing with "a lion and a bear", that is, challenges with consequences, to cause growth.  (So much for the "there are no winners and no losers because everyone wins, and everyone gets 100% and everyone gets a trophy, even just for maintaining a pulse!")

With all of these positive attributes, no company, and certainly no police department wants to hire someone who poses a risk of violence. 

I speak of two forms of violence, specifically:

Physical Violence and Bullying.

In western thought, bullies are weak.  In business, bullies are those who are also weak, pick their victims out specifically, and thrive in bureaucracy more than the private sector.  In law enforcement, they are dangerous, as they will combine verbal/emotional bullying, with the threat of lethal force.  

No police department can, or should, hire one who's nerves cannot bear up under pressure.  For law enforcement, it is not the "danger we face every day" that wears them down.  On the contrary, it is the threat of danger, every day, that does the most damage.  It is one thing knowing a threat, but it is quite another to not be able to identify a threat, or even if such a threat will be faced today.  This is far more weighing, and too often ignored. 

Bullies in business will steal ideas, ridicule co workers, pit one against another, and almost always set up a false dichotomy of "us versus them", as they always seek an allegiance.  Thin skinned, they can burn for years over what they perceive as a personal insult or slight and may seek to exact revenge even after an employee has moved on.  To bully is to create discord in the work place, push forward ideas that may not be best, and create an atmosphere of mistrust and eventually, hostility that will either push good employees out, or, for those who stay, destroy their health.  

Q.  How can you spot a bully?

Q.  How can you spot an officer who, under pressure, may not control himself?  This is the one who should never carry lethal force on his person.  

Answer:  it is the same answer to both.  The language will reveal this, and this vetting should be far more effective than the typical background checks and interviews with kindergarten teachers.  

The violent, including the emotionally violent bully, will reveal himself (most are males, though some are females, with female violence on a steady, 30 year increase) in his words, before you hire him. 

Since sports is such an excellent training took for life, it is also no surprise that it is within sports that we find the language which reveal:

domestic violence
child abuse 
physical violence 

  The caveat is singular, and the HR professional with training, especially in analysis and legally sound interviewing, will bring the applicant, by the applicant's own words, to the crucible where the answer will surface:  

 we  need to know a single critical element:  sportsmanship.

How important is sportsmanship?

Answer:  It is the single most important element of sports, even superseding the lessons of effort, testing, consequence, and confidence:


Sports, by nature, exploits weakness.  

Even if the applicant never played sports, but was in debate club:  he or she saw the weakness of the argument of the opponent, and exploited it. 

In football, if the opponent has a weakness on its left flank, the team will run the ball through that weakness each and every time it exists. 

In chess, a single weak square, created by the lowly pawn move, becomes the entire center of both long term strategy, and the implementation of tactics to obtain that weak square, to build up forces, and launch the final attack on the enemy king. 

I ask police officers to consider this within themselves, and their coworkers:

Would you be comfortable with Officer Smith pulling over your teenaged daughter or son,  late at night, on a rural road?  Would you know your child's best interest will be balanced with the enforcement of the law?  Not that you seek suspension of the law, but can you rest knowing that your child will be treated honestly, fairly, and respectfully, even if in the wrong?



For some, so hesitant to speak a negative word, the thought of Officer Smith or Officer Jones in such a scenario brings a chill down the spine, quietly wishing the department had never hired Smith and Jones.  

I once received a lengthy lesson in domestic violence from a chaplain who worked in minor league ice hockey in the Northeast.  His biggest concern? The athletes who physically or emotionally could not "turn off competition" when they arrived home to their wives and children.  Even those who were not "abusive", still, sometimes, "competed" with their wives, with such things as, "Well, they obey me!" regarding the kids.  

We are aware from main stream media just how bad domestic violence is in the homes of the NFL players, but whatever we read is far less than what happens, as most child protective intervention is kept from the media, as is the seeking of intervention for D/V where there is a willingness to work.  By the time we hear of it, it has already exploded.  

What is it that causes the competition to come to a screeching halt, so that life can peacefully go on?

What is it that makes a strong officer, under a threat, talk down the aggressor, without having to use his weapon?

What makes one man strong enough to walk away from an argument that has gone astray, than to stay put until blows are exchanged?

What is it that allows one to use highly controlled aggression, to the good of society, while not crossing the line to violence?

It is "sportsmanship."

The HR professional must seek to learn if the applicant learned "sportsmanship" or did not.  It is the "off switch" that is so necessary for civilized society, strong and useful debate in business that allows for advancement and forward leaning progress.

Sportsmanship shows self control and human empathy for the vanquished foe.  It is, historically, what led in early "English Knights" having a code of honor, to the code of ethics for prisoners of war.  It is evidenced in civilized nations and greatly evidenced in its lack in brutal regimes and cultures.

If a person learned to exploit and celebrate weakness, void of humility and empathy for the “loser”, we must learn if he will treat employees with kindness, especially when they struggle.

Sports, by nature, exploits the weakness of the opponent, which is expected.  Sportsmanship’s element sought by us is the attitude of the victor towards the defeated. Those who taunt, excessively boast, or feel that the victory, for example, was not just a sports victory but of “superiority” outside the sport, reveals  a very concerning signal for one who’s job is to encourage subordinates:  they must show empathy.

How much worse is this when the applicant, if hired, will carry lethal force?

The bully is thin skinned.  He often enjoys the infliction of pain on others, as his need for respect supersedes human empathy.  He is often a pragmatist and will do "whatever it takes to win", which may sound great, that is, until your company is under federal indictment, or your department, with its budget already stretched, facing a major payout for someone who got a confession after watching too many reruns of "The Shield" and injured the suspect. 

                           The "pragmatist" cuts corners and are not always male:

We have all met the officer who showed an acute need for respect, and felt the inherent danger involved, just as we have all met the one who could have cared less whether we were respectful or not:  he or she was secure in work enough to not be overly concerned. 

We have all met the business professional who, if his idea is challenged, sees "red" and is ready to not simply answer the argument, but compartmentalize the critic and personally demonize him. 

 "Your ideas are always weak."

In spite of a culture of "reporting" in the manner of ESPN, which glorifies violence, self, and narcissism in general, we still need to find those who, even in celebrating victory, maintain control and empathy for the loser.  What makes for a laugh on television, does not make for a good manager of real employees, with real problems, real weaknesses, and real issues. 

What may seem like "cowboy" heroics in a bar, may not translate to one, under pressure, who perceives the public as a constant threat.  

Recall the case of Cynthia Witlach who drove her partner (personal, not police) around in a patrol car to "show off" how she "teaches" citizens to respect her by bullying them.   She traumatized an elderly vet, who had never been in trouble, because his skin was darker than hers. 

Do not think for a minute that police officers were not whispering, one to another:

Who hired this psychological train wreck?

Someone did the interview and should have, with training, picked up not only the weakness of her character, but of her "victim status" mentality, who used gender, race, sexuality, and career, all as tools of "war against" perceived enemies.  Was not her blatant racism evident in her language?  Of course it was.  Was not her psychological need for relevancy, in its extremity, not evidenced in her language?  Only if one is not listening.  This leads me to ask:  Was someone afraid to not hire her due to her victim status? This, itself, is not just a red flag, but a red flag wrapped in a red flag, put in a red box handed to the Interviewer with a note, written in red ink that said, "DO NOT HIRE" in bold type.  

How do I get this information?

Professionals get professional training.  

I begin with simple, non-intrusive legally sound questions and immediately employ my training.  Once I get to competition, I set up various scenarios where winners and losers are in the same place, together.  

You might find it very funny, for example, to see a fan of one team "unable" to watch a game with a fan of his rival team, but what is funny on a Sunday afternoon, is not funny in a board room on Monday morning.  "In your face!  You ***!" is comical at a bar, watching a big screen, but what if it is more than just Friday night humor and it is brought into the work place?

I seek reactions where human empathy is necessary, accomplished by the "scenario" questions used after the open ended and relevant questions posed.    

I may bring up an injury, including a famous video of a professional being injured and I carefully listen to the reaction:

There are those who will absolutely love the video of a football player being severely injured, or will be one of the many "hits" on a youtube clip of a terribly violent action.  

If he "enjoyed" the carnage, run, do not walk, away, from hiring him.  

I "confirm" analysis always.  

"The thrill of victory; the agony of defeat" from the old Wide World of Sports introduction gives us the perfect, natural reaction:

The person seeks the crashing skier, and looks away, but really can't look away.  Squeamish duly noted; no problem. 

But what of those who actually enjoy seeing a violent injury?  Recall the "hobby" of Shawn Adkins and Billie Jean Dunn in their collection of "blood lust" videos where the cheerleader is dismembered. 

I ask, "does the subject affirm my assertion, or does he negate it?  Lastly, is his language indifferent to my assertion?"

In other words, he, himself, will tell me if I am right or if I need to go in a different direction. 

If I have a football player, for example, who scored a touchdown.  I begin with,

"tell me about that!"

I allow him to relive his high school glory. 

"What was it like for you when you crossed the goal line?"

You know where I am going...

"What did you do right after?"

If I get a description where the applicant is unafraid to boast how he wiggled his rear end, or taunted his opponent, I begin to get my answer, though I continue to press on. 

I am seeking to learn if he will guide his subordinates, or exploit them.  To guide them is to benefit my business.  To exploit them is to damage my business. 

If it is law enforcement, you may be impressed with his tales of conquest, but it is his reaction to the vanquished that will tell you if he is safe with a public who is on high alert, very sensitive, and a main stream media that targets police. 

It takes one poor hire to damage the reputation of an entire department, even of an entire profession. 

Within bullies, is also an element of "supremacy" which gives birth to "victim status", a powerful psychological drive that will lead to trouble.  Please see my article on Supremacy thinking and language.  

More than ever before, law enforcement needs to hire the best and brightest, with no political pressure involved, hiring confident, humble (confidence is humility's first cousin) and trustworthy.  Just as dishonesty keeps one from being hired, so much bullying and violence.  

The one that "took to the ground" another in an argument:  

This was a case in which I interviewed the subject for the company after the company had already hired him. 

I told them he was violent and it was a matter of time before the violence erupts.  I said that he was a bully, thin skinned, and had never learned to govern his own emotions growing up.  Not in childhood, not in sports, not in school, and it won't be here. 

Several weeks passed when he got into an argument with a co worker in front of vulnerable clients.  The owner of the business decided to have a look for herself, and drove to the location.  

She called police for intervention. 

He threatened her when he perceived that she did not believe him. 

What lawsuits may emerge from this?  What costs?  What of the company's reputation?

Sports are a marvelous way of teaching children to become responsible adults who must compete in the work place and can give them confidence to “tackle” responsibilities and challenges. 

Sportsmanship combines these great skills along with human empathy that translates into good management. 

I was often teased by parents for not allowing my sons to be overly demonstrative when they hit a home run, and later, when they scored a goal in ice hockey.  I knew that they needed to learn to govern their own passions but I also knew that the parents of the kids who were doing choreographed celebrations and taunts of the opponents, would never grasp this, so I simply said,

"Well, by not celebrating it certainly puts a reminder into the opponent to expect more..."

I'm not certain that even this was understood.  

Even with the cultural change, there is still nobility of those who can celebrate a victory, without the need of humiliating the opponent.  By watching even the reaction of one observing the very public display of ostentatious celebration, we learn whether or not the applicant holds the human empathy as a prized trait, which will work to help keep him (or her) from crossing the line, and bringing harm to the public, loss to the company, and a black eye to the reputation.  

It always comes down to:  "Who hired this $%^&?"

For training for yourself, or your company, visit Hyatt Analysis

Next up:  Agenda in Hiring:  Social Justice Warriors