Friday, February 28, 2014

Humility in Analysis

One cannot learn if one can't see the need to learn.


Do you remember Mr. Sapir's "40% more" teaching?

It is amazingly accurate.

He teaches that when the same statement is analyzed by you, later in time (after emotional connection is broken...perhaps even forgotten), the same statement will yield up to 40% more information.

I have found this to be true, time and time again.

It is also why group analysis is such a blessing, though only if you are among others familiar with the language of humility.

It works especially well in doing anonymous letters, as the analyst must possess the temperament to say:

"Here, I am sure it is a white female" after 2 lines.

"Now, on line 7, I see that it is a male, not a female..."

"I change my mind yet again, as this is someone who is not educated..."

This type of openness and 'willingness to be wrong' allows for the analyst to be at the mercy of the statement:

Exactly where the analyst belongs.

We must be at the mercy of the statement.  The statement should not be at the mercy of our opinion or theory.

We put 'total faith' into the subject to guide us, unless something tells us otherwise.  This is the norm. This is the "expected" in analysis.

Signing one's name means signing one's reputation "on the line" for all to see, saying "Deception Indicated" with one's own name, written clearly for the record.

No anonymous stones thrown.

More about the 40% Factor to come...

80 comments:

elf said...

'We must be at the mercy of the statement' - so often I am.
How do you distance yourself emotionally from a statement? I try to take a statement word by word and that works fine unless I'm feeling what the subject is saying. Like Terry Elvis poem or Trista Reynolds statements, it seems like their words all made of pain and aching. I know in statement analysis the statement is alive and the subject is dead, but how do we keep what the words make us feel separate from what the words tell us? Maybe I'm just too sensitive or just to emotional ...

john said...

OT:

Hi Peter,

I was thinking about the Anonymous note that was left on a tree in Canada for a girl that was walking her dogs. The alleged stalker seemed to know an awful lot about the girl it was intended for..You posted said letter and we all applied our own SA to it.

I am curious to know if you analyzed the note too, and if so, what was your SA opinion?

Thanks.

john said...

Link:


Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Anonymous Note from Campbell River Trail
Here is an anonymous note.

Who do you think is the author?

Male or Female
Approximate Age
Education Level
Personality Traits

Does subject pose threat?


http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/anonymous-note-from-campbell-river-trail.html

Nic said...

I agree, Peter.

Time changes a lot, especially perception. Then there is the "hindsight is always 20/20" when you, generally speaking, have all the facts in front of you. It's a risk and it takes courage to be "seen" saying things that aren't as they appear. I'm novice and that's why I always end my analysis with "jmo".

I remember when you initially posted the Hailey Dunn case. From the very beginning you knew who, what and when. I was brand new to Statement Analysis and couldn't see how you could say with certainty, not just that Hailey was dead but you could determine the approximate time of death. It was easy for you to justify why you *knew* she was dead and that the BJD knew, too. It was the other stuff I found difficult to wrap my mind around.

IMO, Statement Analysis is the most fascinating science.

ima.grandma said...

Nic said: Statement Analysis is the most fascinating science.

Yes, this is what keeps me coming to this site time after time. There are times I feel a little sad I had little knowledge of this science while attempting to bust bad doctors. I could only present my reports with confirmed facts to the administrative hearing attorneys. If only I could have this intellectual discipline of study to back up the reports, I may have been able to protect more patients.

Nic said...

I missed that post, John.

o/t

Stranger danger. This guy definitely posses a threat.

"You seem to realize when you're being watched, but perhaps your very large, aggressive looking dogs, plus the bear spray and the concealed knife I know that you carry, give you a sense of security."

He's insinuating ("sense") that she's not as "secure" as she thinks/feels she is. What the girl carries on her person is used to ward off bears. But he inserts himself into her false sense of security against those weapons. IMO, he is implying that what she carries to protect herself from bear aggression is no match for *him*. IMO, he sees himself bigger and stronger than a bear.

He is a threat to her security because her dogs have seen him and have demonstrated aggression towards him/his behavior (raised hair). They have attempted to protect her from him and he acknowledges this.

If he knows what she carries on her person, then he is not just seeing her on the trail, he's seeing her at the trail head prepping for her walk. So he is not just hiding in the woods, he is following her/walking in and around her.

He conceals himself from her (jumps off the trail, shy/almost slipped up,) if he thinks she will see him. If he is working hard not to be seen, then what he knows he is doing is wrong and a threat.

The letter's intent is to unnerve her "sense" of security. (Block letters (yelling/aggression), bold (highlighted security threat) exclamation mark = demanding/urgency to be noticed).

He is sexually attracted/a threat to her. He refers to her beautiful face and **body**. Fox reference = sexual (foxy).

He thinks of himself as intelligent (fox reference - smarter than a fox), leaving "clues" (letters) about his proximity. He is an ego maniac (demands to be noticed/that she acknowledge that he is near her).

Stalker - cat/mouse game. Her not aware that she is being "hunted".

This is a male. He is dangerous. He is large and aggressive (bear comparison). He is single and looking to find a mate (cologne/pheromone). He is not interested in dating her, he wants her (cologne/pheromone). He is high School educated (basic grammar/spelling errors) and works a union j*o*b (usually grade 10 minimum required and timed/scheduled lunch/everyday). She probably walks her dogs every day at lunch, in the woods/park (dogs are scheduled, too). I would even go as far to say that this guy works for whatever level of government maintains the trails in that area (provincial gov't or Parks Canada (federal)). jmo If so, easy to find out who is scheduled for what and when and then investigate/monitor the employees there.

If I lived there, I would change my routine/not walk by myself on that trail or any others for fear that he knew where I lived until I heard that he was caught.

GeekRad (formerly Local anon in the Hailey Dunn case) said...

So now we need the hoody analysis and the note on the tree analysis please. Please....

I agree Nic. I came here becuase Peter did a better job of reporting on and analyzing the Hailey Dunn case than local media and LE. That is when I got hooked on this site.

Jacobs Mom said...

Nic said..
I remember when you initially posted the Hailey Dunn case. From the very beginning you knew who, what and when. I was brand new to Statement Analysis and couldn't see how you could say with certainty, not just that Hailey was dead but you could determine the approximate time of death. It was easy for you to justify why you *knew* she was dead and that the BJD knew, too. It was the other stuff I found difficult to wrap my mind around.
---------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Peter didn't say (from the beginning) Hailey Dunn was dead nor did he know who, what and when. He fairly analyzed several parties statements for a period of time before he told us what statement analysis revealed.

john said...

Hi Nic,

Every now and then i have a look back at this case to see if there have been any arrests etc.

It was Peters, "40% more" teachings" from above that triggered my memory of this.

Was it a hoax set up by the girl it was meant for, for one reason or another. Or was it a genuine threat to her person?.

ima.grandma said...

good morning geek-love your name by the way

i was surprised yesterday when you said you didn't have children of your own. i imagined you to have several due to your compassion and sincerity towards children's plights as shown in your posts. i don't mean to imply those without children don't have these qualities as i know they do. i just made an assumption.

i'm also curious about the solution to the exercise. i made so many different guesses about it; i was all over the place. i typed my thoughts as they came to me head but it was fun. i try not to do that on real public issues. i try to put as much thought into my comment before posting a reply. there are times i want to post an opinion but don't because of a fear to hurt someone that hasn't been proven guilty in the court system or at least charged. i have done it before and later had some regret. maybe that is where emotion is involved for me so i choose the option to abstain. but billie jean and shawn are exceptions to that personal rule; that's an entirely different type of emotion.

john said...

Hi ima.grandma,

I was following your analysis yesterday on the "Theft" post.

You made me smile all day with your family dynamic situation, and your tenacity to get to the bottom of who did what and why. :-)

Ps.

I hope you got your Groceries. lol

Nic said...

This is one letter, reporting refers to "letters".

If dog walkers/hikers were find the author's messages before the girl, then he would be motivated to address her specifically so that whomever came before her would left his message for the intended. (He was very specific to whom he was addressing his letter.)

If it was a hoax, the "girl" would have stood back and watched how the RCMP would react. (Mischief.)

That's how I see it.

Based on the reporting, it is noted that the RCMP found her and spoke with her...then published a PSA for public safety. So I'm thinking they were satisfied it wasn't a hoax/she wasn't the author. The PSA (linked) means he would have seen it, too ... which could be why nothing since has happened.

Another reason I think this guy is a union employee. He's probably stuck in his job and not able to transfer because of federal cuts/downsizing.

Sus said...

I'm not certain I should comment on this. but since I already did on the previous post, I'll force myself.
(Yes, I see all the red flags in my own statement.)

I guess SA is a lot like real life...make a mistake (or two), take a chance. There are times I don't want to sign my name, but I do. There are times I sign my name and wish after I hadn't. :-) Last night was one time.

I also want to know if they found who posted the letters on the Canadian trail. I googled it for awhile to keep up, but haven't recently. I did find out there are many pipeline and construction workers in the area to build a new plant.

ima.grandma said...

hey there john, but poor sus was the one that was snowed in and was going to starve. peter was supposed to get my house straightened up for me which he failed miserably. now i have to pick up all the popsicle sticks, legos and find the remote myself. thanks peter.

Nic said...

@Jacobs Mom...

Peter rarely posts his analysis straight off. It's usually after much readers' analysis and discussion he will share his analysis and thoughts.

The more BJD talked the more she confirmed his thoughts and opinion and he was able to point to her statements as "proof".

Sadly, even with Hailey found, no arrests have been made. It appears that LE just isn't motivated to go forward.

john said...

Hi Nic,

Do you have a link to the RCMP conversation with her. It would be interesting from an SA point of view to hear what she had to say?

john said...

~Sends Aid from across the pond to Sus~

Sus said...

Oh, and Peter, please don't post any practice exercises today.

The snow will start hitting here tonight and it takes preparation to be snowed in AGAIN.

Thank you.

elf said...

Do y'all think Heathers case will set any new precedents(sp) as far as prosecuting without a body?

Nic said...

Also, Jacobs Mom,

Hailey Dunn's case wasn't the very beginning of Peter's blog. For a lot of us, it's when we found statement analysis, but there were 'student's before us analyzing what Peter would post. Much like the subsequent cases that came along after Hailey's. He posts the cases for us to practice what we learn. Sometimes he will underline and highlight parts for specific notice (hints).

GeekRad said...

Hi ima. Thanks for commenting on my name and my compassion. No kids of my own but nieces, nephews and lot of friend's kids we've been aunt and uncle to:0)

elf said...

Be careful out there when your stocking up on storm supplies Sus:)

Nic said...

John,

No. I clicked on the jump in Peter's post you linked to above:

http://www.courierislander.com/opinion/rcmp-issue-warning-over-stalker-letter-on-campbell-river-walking-trails-1.791971

[snip]Police were able to locate the female involved and speak with her. [end snip]

The article also refers to hikers finding 'notes' and turning them over to the RCMP. I'm thinking that the stalker was frustrated his letters were being intercepted which is why he was so specific about who he was addressing...yelling(block caps) bold(anger) ! He wanted whomever came before her to leave the letter for his intended and mind their own business.

Nic said...

elf - I'm hoping they are successful so that other LE will have the fortitude to make it about the victim and pursuing justice instead of turning into fear of their career if they "lose".

Jacobs Mom said...

Nic said...
Peter rarely posts his analysis straight off. It's usually after much readers' analysis and discussion he will share his analysis and thoughts.

The more BJD talked the more she confirmed his thoughts and opinion and he was able to point to her statements as "proof".
--------------------------------
Yes, you are learning. Good job.


Nic said...
Also, Jacobs Mom,
Hailey Dunn's case wasn't the very beginning of Peter's blog. For a lot of us, it's when we found statement analysis, but there were 'student's before us analyzing what Peter would post. Much like the subsequent cases that came along after Hailey's. He posts the cases for us to practice what we learn. Sometimes he will underline and highlight parts for specific notice (hints).
--------------------------------
Agreed. I have been reading Peter's statement analysis since November of 2009 when he covered Shaniya Davis. If I remember correctly, mj was posting as far back as then as well.

:)

Red Ryder said...

I hear you elf! Being at the mercy of the emotions that the statement and (for me) the usual tragedy unfolding arouses makes it hard for me to consider the statement alive and the subject dead. I find it difficult to reach the dispassionate caring I think one needs to do this, to stand outside of the statement and be completely focused within it. I don't know if that makes any sense at all! I see it as a helping thing. It is a high level of caring and love to which I aspire, I'm learning a lot here.

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarlaP said...


It works especially well in doing anonymous letters, as the analyst must possess the temperament to say:

"Here, I am sure it is a white female" after 2 lines.

"Now, on line 7, I see that it is a male, not a female..."

"I change my mind yet again, as this is someone who is not educated..."


Great timing with this post, Peter. There was an anonymous comment on a Heather Elvis post that was incredibly offensive, which you deleted. I couldn't figure out if it was a angry man projecting his issues with rejection by attractive women or projection by a bitter woman who's husband had cheated on her with a younger, more attractive woman. It really bothered me, the hate was palpable and had nothing to do with Heather Elvis personally. It's fascinating how much someone can reveal about themselves without disclosing any personal information.

JoAnn said...

I'm with Red Ryder & elf: it's so difficult to separate emotions from analysis when you know background information, and, as is so often true, there is tragedy, grief and death involved. I loved yesterday's exercise! I thought about it all day (posted on facebook a couple of times about it). There was no emotional investment at all, and that just made it fun :)

Sus said...

Thanks all for caring about my coming snowstorm. I'm ready. I'm getting pretty used to snow and cold this winter in Illinois. I believe we are downgraded to 7 inches now...not bad if the ice stays out of the picture. :-)

IMAMOM said...

Thank you for posting this, Peter. I love these exercises and learn so much from them! I've been a long-time follower (I started back when the Lisa Irwin case began). I've been studying the book you suggested 'I Know You Are Lying', by Mark McClish and feel that I'm getting better, but I still struggle with 'preconceived' thoughts and emotions regarding some cases. I'm working on it, though!

Oh, and to ima.grandma...I'm an Okie as well! Northeast of the Tulsa area and I am NOT looking forward to more winter weather this weekend! I did get my grocery shopping done on Wednesday, though... : )

~mj said...

Statement Analysis fascinates me too and I love the educational value of this site.

I found Mr. Hyatt's site with the Amanda Knox ordeal waaaay back. The Casey Anthony stuff and trial, Kyron Horman and many others of the older cases. Another reason I enjoy this site is I find the posts useful in reporting the updates. This site reminds us that the media can really bugger things up when reporting. Then to add to it the community and how we work off one another in understanding SA. It is very enjoyable.

Some of you are hilarious and the over-all mood here is generally good. Obviously, as with anything on the internet, it gets a little hairy at times, but hey, it adds to the flavor of life!

Kellie Sue said...

elf said...

Do y'all think Heathers case will set any new precedents(sp) as far as prosecuting without a body?

_______________________________

I was surprised to find that SC alone has successfully prosecuted 11 of 13 cases for murder without a body! 3 in Horry Co. Check it out. http://www.nobodycases.com/no_body2.pdf

Rachael said...

Sus, as a Chicagoan, I'm excited about the snow downgrade!

I never thought I would be pleased to hear we'd be getting 7 inches of snow, but here I am. Stay warm and safe. :)

Sus said...

Hey Rachael,
I agree on the 7 inches. Unbelievable winter here, huh? I'm downstate, but my youngest daughter is in Chicago and my son works there often.

Have a warm safe weekend.

ima.grandma said...

hi sister okie, im in moore. and i didn't get my groceries yet, i'm still waiting on sus to bring me over some of hers.

i started here in june 2008 and found the site because i became obsessed with the caylee anthony tragedy. i'll never forget that first day when the major media picked up the 911 call. i read for a long time before my first post. i was so hesitant for two reasons. 1-i had just started hearing about the phenomenon of blogging and i wasn't sure how it worked. 2-i was completely intimidated by the expertise by some of the bloggers at that time. i knew there was no way i could carry on an intelligent conversation because i didn't know what i was talking about yet.

i finally got up the nerve one day while reading about the doctor that testified at the anthony trial. my sore spot was hit upon. i have an intense disdain for those who are supposed to do no harm. it took me the afternoon to edit my comment as to what i was going to post. now it seems silly, everyone had to begin somewhere and i remember the entire group to be nothing but kind and welcoming -trolls weren't as frequent or crude- at but it gave me the window i needed to sit back and learn. i'm so glad you introduced yourself and to have another poster from my state

p.s. sorry about the consistent lower case this past week. my son brought over his old laptop for me but both the shift keys stick real bad; it's just easier on my finger joints not to have to pull the key back up every time i cap. it's probably those monster drinks he was always spilling.

Kellie Sue said...

The nasty comments here are a catalyst for me to say;

Sus, you are a lovely human being as is Ms Lemon and all others who participate on this blog. :D And I appreciate the lively conversation and learning Statement Analysis.

Thank you Peter Hyatt.

ima.grandma said...

Kellie Sue said...

elf said...

Do y'all think Heathers case will set any new precedents(sp) as far as prosecuting without a body?

_______________________________

I was surprised to find that SC alone has successfully prosecuted 11 of 13 cases for murder without a body! 3 in Horry Co. Check it out. http://www.nobodycases.com/no_body2.pdf

February 28, 2014 at 4:25 PM

i read that and find that to be extraordinary. i remember rob -he's from sc- saying something about it. i googled it and found quite a bit of info on the fbi site about what it takes to successfully prosecute these cases. go panthers!

Sus said...

Why thank you, Kelly Sue. That opens the door for me to say something.

Maggie,
I see you're on another post debating with yourself about the need for different points of view on this blog. You feel I called you out because I disagree with your view. I called you out because you don't believe in your own view or truth. You call in false reinforcements to back your truth up. I understand from what you've told us that you had a sociopathic/abusive parent. And I understand such a parent takes your truth from you so you defend it with all your might. I get that, I really do. Here's the important part...let the past go, open up to the world.

There's my sermon. Lol. Now I'm trying to decide whether to push "publish."

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kellie said...

OT

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/24851622/horry-county-police-at-peachtree-landing-for-forensic-reenactment?utm_content=buffer9b417&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Forensic Reenactment in Heather Elvis case!

Kellie said...

another OT

Horry Co is on the ball! An arrest has been made in connection with another missing woman Angie Pipkin.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/24855044/man-arrested-in-connection-to-missing-aynor-woman

Red Ryder said...

IMAMOM , thanks for posting the book you study. I have been trying to remember it all day!
Harry co pd is sure on the ball!
Where is Heather?

Red Ryder said...

Hi Nic! There was a blog on the Campbell Trail Letter on Jan.21 if you go back in the archive sidebar..

ima.grandma said...

i just noticed my error in one of my posts.

i have an intense disdain for those who are supposed to do no harm.

i meant: i have an intense disdain for unscrupulous doctors who are supposed to do no harm

i'm so sorry to anyone who read that who is a doctor or doctor's wife/husband. i wouldn't be alive right now if not for good doctors. i thought i proofread it before i posted.

Maggie said...

Sus--Why are you posting to me on this thread when I have not been on this thread? I have not posted anything on this thread. Am I missing something? What reinforcements did I call in? Totally confused...

JoAnn said...

@ima.grandma
Not at all insulted by your earlier comment! The funny thing is that I read it the way you meant it the first time & had to look back twice to understand your apology. Maybe an instance of reading what I expected to see from you, as your prior posts show that you are a compassionate & sensitive individual. Cut yourself some slack! Lol

polywog said...

I started reading when Peter called in on the Haleigh Cummings 911 call to Simon & Jan Barretts radio show for blogger news quite a few years ago. Anyone else here follow that case on BNN?

elf said...

Dang! That's pretty phenomenal. I wonder what their secret is? I can think of quite a few states that need to pay attention.

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maggie said...

Imagrandma--Thank your for your post I guess. What am I supposed to confess though? You and Sus have accused me of "talking to myself" in the other thread. I am not the anon poster who changed her name to somanyways. I am not the troll. I have not "called in reinforcements" because I dont believe my own truth" (as Sus said). I have not posted under any other name or under anon agreeing with myself or talking to myself. I am not the person who writes the "car door" jokes under the name "Maggie" written in blue. I don't think it is fair I am being accused of this. I don't even write like any of those individuals including "somanyways" (she has a different style of writing), so I dont know why I am being accused of this.
There is a troll or trolls here--I am not sure if it is one person pretending to be several or actually multiple people. But let me clear that up, because I think I am being accused of being that person or people. I am not the turd troll. I am not the "mentally ill" troll who writes about sapir spelled backwards is "rapist". I am not the troll who has been writing mean things about Sus or any other person (including me Maggie).
I am assuming this is what you wanted me to confess to, as you and Sus had stated I was "talking to myself" under other names. I did not talk to myself under other names or under the name anon. I hope this clears things and I dont know why I was suspected of any of this. A person named anon who then picked a name--somanyways--was sharing similar viewpoints yesterday, so you 2 figured that has to be me talking to myself? It couldnt just be another person who happens to share a similar view? That is insulting to me that anyone would jump to that comclusion, as if my opinions are so strange that noone else could see merit in them or just simply have a similar opinion.

mouse said...

Maggie trademark: -- between thoughts...

somanyways trademark: -- between thoughts...

anonymous defending maggie and other former anon, now known as somanyways, trademark: -- between thoughts...

Odd how only the posters who are commenting bashing thoughts on the Terry Elvis poem comments(maggie, former anon now known as somanyways, and anonymous)use -- between their thoughts. They have identical thoughts and a deep need to 'pat themselves and each other on the back' each time they make their bashing comments.

Maggie said...

Mouse--I am not somanyways. Why don't I accuse you or anyone else here of being multiple people? You agree with imagrandma, so does that mean you are imagrandma? According to your logic, it does.
It's funny to me, in a way, that so many people think I am "somanyways", because I am not her, and it doesnt say very much for people's skill in statement analysis that people are sure I am here, BECAUSE I AM NOT HER!
You said I made "bashing comments"? Who did I bash? What did I say, specifically, that bashed anyone?
If you dont like the opinions I shared that is fine. I am not obligated to agree with anyone. I am not required to have any specific emotional reaction or feelings about any poem or piece of writing, as noone here should be required to feel any specific way about any poem or piece of writing. Do you want me to lie and say I love something or think it is wonderful or it moves me when it doesnt? If I keep being accused of posting under names agreeing with myself, is that going to finally force me to apologize for sharing an opinion you and others dont like? No, it won't. Because I did not post under the name somanyways or any other name besides Maggie (in black not blue) and I stand by my right to feel as I did about the poem regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. You are allowed to your opinion and I am allowed mine.

Not Maggie, I promise said...

I believe Maggie. Msny commentators use the hyphens -- between their thoughts.

Kim said...

I feel that all commenters should be allowed to voice their different opinions without feeling like an "outsider" or not welcomed. One-sided conversations can lead to stagnant analysis.

Maggie said...

Thank you Kim!
One other thing I wanted to say about mouse's concern about hyphen use, I picked up this habit as an English major writing paper after paper after paper. Hyphens were useful to me in writing about literature, and I noticed several other English majors used them. Maybe somanyways was an English major also? It wouldnt surprise me if a lot of the people here had majored in English, as this site would tend to attract people who enjoy words and writing. Just an idea. I could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Maggie, think about bringing back Masquerade and the rest of the 3Ms. Don't forget 'observer'', she was interesting and usually stood in for your 'meetings'.

Anonymous said...

I forgot about 'wayward'. Throw them all back into the mix. Then you put your right foot in, you put your left foot out, you put them altogether and you shake it all about. That's what I'm all about. Clap Clap.

Maggie said...

Nope Sus--Most of what I said were statements, not questions. You said I used "equivocal words"--what does that mean and can you give an example? I also didnt change the topic.
Sus, if you want to throw yourself a party thinking your SA skills have detected I am somanyways or the trolls, feel free. Your "victory" is hollow, because I am not somanyways or the troll or trolls. Your back and forth with Imagrandma last night made it obvious you thought I was somanyways and trolls. Peter has also posted after me and somanyways had posted on the poem thread saying that one person (female he says) is all the trolls, so I figured he was accusing me. If I had that wrong, my bad.
I'm not any of those people Sus. I think it's one troll messing with all of us. I hope I have that right that you are accusing me of being the trolls, so that it won't be used against me that I said I am not.

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kim said...

Ironic that the title of this thread is humility in analysis. IMO, those engaged in this "Maggie topic" are all humiliating themselves.

Why did the "Maggie topic" even begin?

Sincerely,
Kim
Reader since Peter/Seamous posted one of his first blog posts about his swiss army watch and why it was a keeper.

CarlaP said...

Kim,

Why did you feel the need to clarify how long you've been following the blog?

Kim said...

Hi CarlaP. Because I'm proud of the knowledge that I have gained the past few years in using statement analysis. Also, in the comments above, polywog, mj and someone else was referring to how they found statement analysis. I added to the conversation.

CarlaP said...

I'm surprised you don't participate more often.

Kim said...

One does not have to post, in order to learn. Unfortunately, my free time is limited. I am now ending my conversation with you CarlaP. Have a nice evening.

CarlaP said...

You've spent a very long time reading and studying the blog, that seems time consuming for someone with such limited free time. Interesting you would choose now to chime in, commenting only on the "Maggie topic". That seems to happen a lot lately. A lot of sensitivity and hostility in your response. Maybe you haven't learned as much as you thought you had?

CarlaP said...

All the anons seem to be really emotionally invested and revved up! Just your typical group of anonymous strangers being intensely defensive and heavily emotionally invested in another stranger. Totally normal, expected behavior...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I think everyone who chimed in had good things to say, but I think we should be sensitive to mental illness, and I'm not sure people were being as gentle as they could be when trying to talk about this very sensitive topic.

Curious said...

I agree, good point. One sign of some mental illnesses is lack of insight where a person does not know they have the mental illness. I wonder if there is anything we can look for in writing to tell when someone has mental problems. I would say anger and defensiveness would be clue #1. But I am curious if there are any specific words or sentence structures we can look for.

~mj said...

Good point anon @ 11:18.

I also think there is something to the whole "electronic communication" -sincerity and a personal connection can be lost in translation. So can humor or sarcasm.

A lot can be misconstrued. Especially when you take into consideration backgrounds, equipment (like posting from a smart phone or tablet vs a pc) and peoples different preferences with abvreviations and patterns in speech.

We are all different and in a lot of ways alike. We all have something to offer this community.

CarlaP said...

I love differing opinions in discussions, like was stated earlier, "One-sided conversations can lead to stagnant analysis". I agree 100%, I'm sure the majority here agree as well. Although the controversy about multiple accounts, etc was derailed and reframed as though that was the issue, it's not. It's not much of a discussion if everyone has the same opinion.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Maggie said...

Anon @ 10:19--Well thank you for pointing that out! That took of a LOT of intelligence to point out that if you take the "not" out of any reliable denial, the person would actually be admitting to whatever they are denying! So, if we take the "nots" out of my denial, I will actually be admitting to all those things!!! Do you havr anything similarly profound to share about your ability to diagnose people as having mental illness over the internet because they dont agree with you?

Anonymous said...

Portion from below link for author:

People choose their words for a reason. The reason is simple: it is what is in their mind.

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is an eternal truth.

The heart is the seat of the affections and the intellect. Both what we think and what we feel comes out through the mouth.

Watch the interviews on television that are becoming popular. "Real Interrogations" is a good one because they have the transcript of the interview on the screen as it is being spoken. Listen when someone says, "Oh, man. You think I did it?" and note the person.

The person who says this, unprompted by the Interviewer, is telling you, within the sentence, "I did it", and you will find, as the show concludes, that the person who said "I did it" even though it was framed in a question, is the one who "did it" and is in prison.

If your beloved says "You think that I cheated on you! I'm telling you once and for all, 'Nothing happened' but you don't believe me!".

I can tell you two things:

1. Something happened. "Nothing" cannot happen.
2. They cheated and confessed with their own words "I cheated on you". If these words did not come from the accuser first, there is an issue present.

(These words must be spoken unprompted. If they were prompted by the Interviewer, they are not the subject's own words, but a reflecting back of the Interviewers words).

Listen for confessions by listening for pronouns. Stephen Trunscott, in prison for murder, denied knowing the victim. Yet he said, he didn't "really know my victim."

This is an example of a confession by pronoun.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/pronouns-and-confessions.html

This an excellent article for SA principle study.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter Hyatt said...

I post from time to time asking people not to "feed the trolls", that is, give them the negative attention they seek.

Often "trolls" are but one person, from a single IP address, posting as 'many'...

Discussion is one thing, but responding to personal attacks is to take the bait.

Those who edit here are instructed to delete the negative attention seeking posts as well as any responses.

Peter Hyatt

Maggie said...

Thank you Peter. I will not respond to anymore personal attacks as you have requested.

Maggie said...

Anon @ 1:16--Since your question is about statement analysis, I will answer. If an individual is stating that another "said" something about them, and repeats what was said, that is not an embedded confession. For example, if "Tom" accuses me of stealing a loaf of bread and I say "Tom said I stole a loaf of bread", this is not an embedded confession. I believe Peter covered this when he talked about "entering into the language" of the interviewer.