Saturday, May 31, 2014

Statement Analysis in Everyday Life


Statement Analysis in Everyday Life 
by Peter Hyatt


This is one in a long series of simple application of Statement Analysis principles displayed by submission from readers. 

The following was sent in by a reader who prefers to remain anonymous. 

Dear Peter:

I am a chef who must have certain speciality knives in my collection, particularly when dealing in seafood.  Anything less than razor sharp in a particularly expensive knife impacts my work and contrary to what others think, a less than sharp knife is more dangerous, but that's for another story. 

Anyway, I bought this speciality knife on line from a reputable dealer, who is known for his expertise in sharpening.  It was very expensive and all of his speciality knives are sharpened by him personally.  Only an expert would know how to sharpen to the degree needed, and only an expert (or someone with a microscope) would know when it is done professionally. 

When I received the knife, I found that I was not able to debone certain seafood the way that I expected this knife to work, so I wrote to him about it.  His reply was that it was not the knife but my technique. 

Of course, this is possible, but I know the technique he sharpened this knife for and although I am not an expert at it, I am not a novice, either.  

I wrote back to him and said, "Did you sharpen this before you shipped it?"

I received the following response:

"All of my knives are professionally sharpened before leaving the store."

I then asked, "Is it possible that this one slipped through without being sharpened?"

He wrote, "You are not handling the knife properly.  It is sharpened to work at slightly less than the 45 degree angle.  You need to try using your non dominant hand to pin down the bone area while cutting with the angle prescribed.  I think you need more practice."

What do you think of his response?  I hate accusing anyone of deception.

Friend,

Anonymous 

I wrote back that he should have the knife re-sharpened.

I noted that the seller did not answer the question, "Did you sharpen this before you shipped it?" with the pronoun "I", as in, "I sharpened the knife" in any form.  Everyone makes mistakes, and it is likely that the knife was shipped without sharpening but the seller does not want to own the error.  As Anonymous said, the seller has an impeccable reputation.  

I wrote, "Better to admit error than to lose a customer. "

I did not hear from Anonymous for a few weeks, and was curious as to what happened. I like to know the result of my analysis, 

He wrote that he apologized for not getting back to me but had forgotten.  He took the knife to an expert sharpener who showed him, under the microscope, that it had not been sharpened other than a factory sharpened, and certainly not with the specialized tool the seller is known to use. 

He paid to have it done properly and is very happy with it now. 

He also will likely buy from someone else.  

People do not like to lie outright, because it is stressful and it is avoided, sometimes by deflection, that is, not answering a question directly. 

It is possible that one may say "All knives leaving here are sharpened" and it to be true, but in this case, not only did the seller avoid answering the question, but blamed the purchaser.  I look for pronoun usage, particularly the strength of the pronoun, "I."

A recent study showed that the higher up the chain of command in business, the less likely the "boss" will use the pronoun, "I" in emails. 

I believe the study to be accurate.  

But, does this not go against the principles of Statement Analysis, and the power of the pronoun, "I" in analysis?

For discussion:  

What do you think of higher management avoiding the use of the pronoun "I" in emails?

27 comments:

john said...

The I-Test - The Secret Life of Pronouns.

I found this an interesting test.

Your "I" Exam: Testing your social vision
Who uses the words "I", "me", and "my" more?


In daily speech, people use the pronouns I, me, and my at surprisingly high rates. Use your gut instinct to guess who uses these words more.

http://secretlifeofpronouns.com/exercise/itest/

Anonymous said...

Peter, to answer your question, I believe higher-ups do not use "I" as often because they feel they are superior to those writing to them and to include the "I" would mean they are lowering themselves from their thrones. It is to "withhold" the act of "meeting" them.

Anonymous said...

Ot:
We're pictures of Madeleine and Gerry distrbuted before her "disappearance" ?

Anonymous said...


Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed ...whoooosh...it was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.

The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping...unexpected... Lack of economy in language...expected "the kids bedroom door".
The kids were asleep in the parents room

Anonymous said...

G.U.I.L.T.Y. "Parents".

Anonymous said...

The great things about the "internet"=Peter...Hobnob...John!!!!! You 3 have alerted me to so so much.Thank you :) (I'm the "original""Me"(Liverpool).

Skeptical said...

Perhaps it is a matter of giving directions as opposed to asking.

For example, a manager might say, "You need to go to Cleveland for a meeting next week" instead of "I want you to go to Cleveland next week for a meeting."

Anonymous said...

Latest yahoo trending: Casey Anthony adopts a baby girl for $75,000. The Romanians are not happy. They want to stop her. Shes worth over 8 million dollars now with book, movie and porn deal.

Katprint said...

It makes sense to me that higher management would not use "I" in emails because generally they do not do things themselves but they delegated responsibility to employees to do it. Similarly, the official Judicial Council form "Proof of Service By First Class Mail - Civil" which is designed for use by attorneys in civil cases, allows the attorney (or their secretary if they further delegate to file clerks) to swear that:

"I served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and

____ depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.

____ placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid."

http://da.lacounty.gov/pdf/pos030.pdf

It is so common for attorneys to delegate this task to their staff that I was once accused of falsely claiming that I personally served a particular document when I myself actually prepared the document and a corresponding Proof of Service by Mail, printed them, signed them, photocopied them, properly addressed and stamped an envelope, put them in the envelope, and put the envelope in the Post Office collection box. They had received the document timely and it was postmarked the same day as my proof of service but they were nonetheless trying to challenge the validity of my Proof of Service by Mail (thus invalidating the service of process) by asserting that it was highly unlikely that I would have mailed it myself instead of having my secretary do it. Their challenge was unsuccessful but even now it makes me shake my head a little when I remember it.

Hobnob said...

Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed ...whoooosh...it was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open

Three as we know is the liars number (Mark McClish)
Why does kate need to tell us that three children were sleeping in the room?
Of course they would be, why wouldn't they be?
Would there be less that three children sleeping there in which case Maddie went missing long before they claimed , if there were more, how many more were there and why would they all be sleeping in one apartment unless they were either being babysat by one of the adults allegedly off sick each night or they only had to check one apartment rather than 4 apartments, or that the children were sleeping in a different apartment than the mccanns.

This makes it sensitive.

She also makes mention of the door being more open than when they had left it.

Why would she mention this when gerry had checked on the children around 9ish and then matt oldfield had at 9:30ish where, i would assume, he had opened the door to check on the children and then either pulled it to leaving it ajar or not pulling the door closed at all.

There is also the chance of Maddie having woken to get a drink or use the bathrooom.

Open and closed doors are also a possible sign of sexual contact.

She makes much of the door position and then how she decided to look in on the children and then the laws of physics were smashed when the door slammed to and curtains went whoosh, all despite her having opened the patio door causing a change in air pressure which would have caused the door to slam shut and also curtains whoosjing on a windless night,
AAl this was with the windows and shutter being closed and the curtains tucked in tight behind furniture.

All the additional info is designed to make the listener believe she is telling the truth when she in fact is doing the opposite. Too much extraneous information is used to convince the listener the subject is telling the truth.

Does this mean if the door hadn't slammed and the curtains whooshed , she would not have physically looked in on the children?

Why walk all that distance just to walk in have a listen and walk out again?
Who is to say that a child hadn't fallen and hurt themself, the blankets were on the floor, a child had been sick or any number of things?

The more she talks the more she reveals the deceptions and untruths.

Hobnob said...

off topic



http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/would-you-be-happy-with-their-behavior.html

please feel free to comment :)

ima.grandma said...

Katprint, I enjoy reading about your experiences. I have followed your contributions here and I appreciate your opinion. Your intelligence shows through. Impressive.

Hi Hobnob and John. I hope you are doing well.

Elsie said...

And again, here are the thing I don't understand about SA.

We are told to not interpret, so when he says "All knives leaving here are sharpened" that shpould be exactly what happened.

Yet, you interpret that to be not true. Since the knife in question was not sharpened.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

Hi, ima.grandma

I'm doing great, thanks, i hope you are good too. x


~Waves at "ME"~

Anonymous said...

Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it
What if Gerry murdered Madeleine and staged her body to appear accidentally mortally wounded, what if he allowed Kate to discover Madeleine (after he gave her wine), and talked her into assisting him in the removal and disposal of Madeleines body?

Peter Hyatt said...

Elsie,

We believe someone and do not interpret. This is a principle.

We believe them...

unless they give us reason not to. It is how we start out.

It does not mean being gullible. It is the presupposed thought.

In this case, the seller was unable to bring himself to say "I sharpened it", but only to stay in a generalization.

You'll get there. Always begin with believing what one is saying and listen carefully. If he gives you reason not to, then you make your move.

Peter

john said...

Hi Anon, and anyone else interested in the McCann case. I strongly recommend you to visit "The McCann files".

http://www.mccannfiles.com/

And also our very own Hobs blog.

http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/would-you-be-happy-with-their-behavior.html


Paul Flanagan said...

I think upper management doesn't use "I" because they still don't want to own it--even more so. I've worked for business owners, that have always used "we". It not only spreads the responsibility, but does so in a way that makes it seem as if what ever is being said has been discussed and agreed upon by more than one person. There is the appearance (not sure if it's more than an appearance) of strength in unity.

Paul Flanagan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Flanagan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Flanagan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Flanagan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Celina said...

But where was Madeleine's body all this time? I think her parents killed her, but where was the body in the time between the murder and when they gor rid of her in the rented car? That was almost one month.

Anonymous said...

I think Maddie was taken to an isolated location that night, then moved early the next morning. There were witnesses.

Anonymous said...

What if Gerry put Madeleines body in the garden under the parents bedroom ( where the children were sleeping) staged to appear fatally accidentally wounded from a fall and allowed Kate to discover her body?

Imamom said...

Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed ...whoooosh...it was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open

Why does she say 'as I sent BACK in...'??? Have I misunderstood? I thought she didn't actually go in the room to begin with, but then noticed the door being open much further than when they left it. She went to close it, but then it slammed, then she opened it and thought 'I'll just look at the children'. Then she mentions going 'back in'.

Also, 'I'll just look at the children' sounds very off to me. Look at? Not, look in on? But don't touch?