Friday, June 13, 2014
Self Awareness and Statement Analysis
It is also why LSI teaches it to be a "scientific process" in which the same principles are applied with the expectation of the same results, no matter where the analysis is done, or by whom.
Interestingly enough, people with strong self awareness seem to know others that have strong self awareness and are aware of just how few self aware people there seems to be! Some are just natural at saying, "Oh, I'm insecure about..." rather than acting out their insecurity. They can label quickly, which means they can adjust quickly. You might hear them say, "Don't mind me, I'm a bit nosey..." or other such self effacing comments that show real insight into their own limitations as well as gifts.
These are those who often like analysis and how evenly applied its principles are to be used.
Yet, there are times when we see division, particularly in commenting, where "red flags" magically appear for some, but not for an analyst.
We find these comments often when political statements are analyzed. It leads to a principle
Those led by agenda cannot do analytical work and be successful.
and so on.
These "agendas" can, under any guise, because a person's "reason to live" and dominates every aspect of life. We see this when analysis touches their personal agenda and the reaction is usually anger, or hyper-sensitivity.
When a person lives under the cloud of an "agenda", it becomes clear and apparent to those around him. Socially, all conversation is eventually steered towards this or that particular agenda.
All issues in life are focused through the lens of this particular agenda.
It makes the person feel valuable or worthwhile in life; therefore, without the agenda, they feel as if they are of no consequence in life.
We all have beliefs and agendas in life, but for this person, the agenda is their principle passion in life and anything that touches it sets a fire in the heart where the smoke rises to blind the reason and logic.
They are extremists and they cannot do analysis.
I once spoke to a woman who believed that it was "impossible" for a child to invent sexual allegations; therefore, in her position of authority, every child sexual abuse disclosure was truthful and even if the child were to later recant, the original disclosure was truthful, and the recantation was "coached." Even if Statement Analysis showed that the words the child used came directly from the mother, she refused to break off from her "cause" and "agenda" to "save the children", particularly, female children, in this life.
Her entire life was dedicated to this cause. The wake of false allegations she refused to acknowledge, destroyed many lives.
We sometimes call this "seeing red."
When a certain allegation is reported, we know of some investigators who simply cannot be assigned because they "see red" at the allegation and become overwhelmed emotionally, but cannot recognize the blindspot. (recognizing it would likely allow for the work to continue, under close supervision).
We sometimes even see the "agenda" arise in the perceived guilt or innocence of a particular "stranger" in the news.
There are those who "dedicated" their lives to freeing Amanda Knox. They became embroiled in the cause until it reached the point where they could see nothing but false prosecution. Mention the words "Amanda Knox" and google alerts them so that they can post all sorts of vile insults. While others warn them, "you're getting too obsessed", they see nothing else but Amanda Knox, in everything.
There are those who feel, even after all these years, that it is their calling and duty in life to defend Patsy Ramsey and John Ramsey. The Ramseys did not spend 5 minutes in prison, yet their defenders, who have never met them, lurk everywhere, waiting to be heard.
Dedication to one case at the expense of all others, eventually goes dry. Dedicating a web site to one case means that eventually, the case will be adjudicated or go cold. Then what? Is there life after the case?
We see this in activists who lose the grip on their lives, like the woman who left her husband and children in Florida just to "occupy" a place on cement in NYC. One former FBI agent was fired from his job because, his employer said, he was obsessed with Amanda Knox. It ate him up. (I wonder if his wife was jealous).
The causes are indifferent. They may be righteous causes, or they may be unrighteous causes, but when it consumes the person, they cannot do analysis.
I have seen this with political and sexual causes. Everything comes down to the issue itself, rather than truth or deception.
Recall those who dedicated their entire existence's to Rubin Carter. One woman let him move in, after he got out of jail, only to be beaten and raped by him. Carter was the same before, during and after prison: he was a brute. She was young, idealistic, but so empty that she allowed his cause to become her life.
I once was taken to a 'secret' apartment, in 1979, where 'illegal' bootlegs and 'underground' tapes of Bob Dylan existed. It was all very exciting and seemed out of a 1930's gangster movie of sorts, until I met the young woman.
"This is my dog, Dylan. This is my fish, Dylan. This is my..." Her walls were plastered with Bob Dylan, everywhere, as were her tattoos. It was Silence of the Lambs. As much as I love Dylan, I wondered what would become of her if something terrible about Dylan came out? She was obsessed and it was her cause in life: spread Bob Dylan to the masses, carefully, secretively, in the 'underground.'
I bought a tape and got out of there as quickly as my young legs would take me.
You will see in the comments section these fringe ideals overpowering reason and analysis:
*She must be innocent because she is homosexual.
*He must be guilty because he is homosexual.
*She must have been raped, she is a woman.
*He must be a killer, look how he treated his dog?
*You only analyze _______ (choose political party)
*I'm a feminist and I take exception to... " and it clouds everything she sees in life, including statements.
and the biggest:
*"Analysis is wrong because I say...and I'm not..." as if the world was encircling the one person, asking permission for the sun to rise.
We build principle on general terms, not exceptions.
I even had a comment that said, "When I called 911, I said "hello" and I have never killed anyone." A victory for the Casey Anthony jury.
There are, sadly, those who protest simply because they want to protest. Of these, Bob Dylan said that they carry signs and walk in circles. They long to "belong" to a cause.
Causes and Agendas are some thing we all have, yet if a cause or agenda overtakes a person, the person cannot appropriately work through analysis, as their "cause" or "agenda" will slip in.
Don't let the language of propaganda deceive you. Don't be sucked in.
Question: Can a person know if they are obsessed with a cause?
Answer: They must rely upon their friends and loved ones' honesty.
Those who are capable of recognizing that a cause or an agenda has 'eaten them up' and taken over life, are capable of doing analytical work, likely under supervision if said cause is related to the analysis work being done.
We all have things we believe in, and some quite strongly, but it does not mean we are incapable of doing analysis. It is only when the analysis must be first filtered through the lens of our "cause" that we are off the track.
If someone enters a statement only to prove their little world's agenda, they will do linguistic gymnastics until they prove their cause. Politics and Sexuality are probably the two biggest causes that taint analysis.
If you can talk it through, you will likely be able to do analysis, but if you see red when a particular topic or name arises, you won't.
Anyone who doesn't love Dylan's voice certainly most likely probably can't do analysis. :)