Thursday, September 18, 2014

Vehicle Theft: Change in Language



                                             Vehicle Theft:  Change in Language
by Peter Hyatt


I received the following statement about theft of items within a car.

"I used to always lock my car when I was in the other part of town and when I moved to this neighborhood, the neighbor told me that it wasn't necessary and now look what has happened!
I came out to my vehicle this morning and found that the glove box was open and things were strewn around on the seat.  Someone had gone into my vehicle and stole some important papers out of it. 
I would like something done.  This is ridiculous.  
No one thinks that someone is going to go into their car and steal stuff.  Someone did.  Someone went into my vehicle and took really important papers. I asked my lawyer why someone would have stolen these papers and he said that the thief probably thought they were checks or something. "

Note within the statement not simply pronouns, but change in language.

Change in language indicates a change in reality.  This change in reality should be supported within the statement, itself, that is, within the context.

If the change in language is justified within the context of the statement, it is a very strong indication that memory, that is, experiential memory, is in play.

Where there is no contextual change, the analyst should consider that the subject is not working from memory, as language does not change on its own, but that the subject has 'lost track' of the fabrication, since it is not embedded within memory.

What do you find in this statement?



"I used to always lock my car when I was in the other part of town and when I moved to this neighborhood, the neighbor told me that it wasn't necessary and now look what has happened!
I came out to my vehicle this morning and found that the glove box was open and things were strewn around on the seat.  Someone had gone into my vehicle and stole some important papers out of it. 
I would like something done.  This is ridiculous.  
No one thinks that someone is going to go into their car and steal stuff.  Someone did.  Someone went into my vehicle and took really important papers. I asked my lawyer why someone would have stolen these papers and he said that the thief probably thought they were checks or something. "

The common term is "car", and not "vehicle."

"Vehicle" is something more used by law enforcement (this subject is not law enforcement), insurance adjusters, and mechanics.

It was a "car" prior to the theft.

While speaking of it, associated to the theft, it is a "vehicle", which is distancing language.  She did not want it to be her "car" while knowing or believing that someone violated it by entering it.

Even when speaking of others, it is a "car" (note "their cars...") but when she returned to her own car, in the topic of theft, it went back to "my vehicle."

This word change is made by the brain in less than a microsecond.  Some estimate that word choice has a 1 in 1000 chance of being incorrect, but in any case, we know that word choice is highly accurate, and that word change is influenced, first and foremost, by emotion.

Here, the emotion elicited by the thought of someone actually going into her car, and her glove box, so disgusted her, that it caused her brain to 'change' the car into a 'vehicle.'



9 comments:

peter said...

So if she had continued to use the word car instead of vehicle would that be a sign of deception?

Buckley said...

I'm guessing it would mean she wasn't as emotionally traumatized by the theft.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the case, I think she is embellishing on this story to some extent; #1 reason being, why would anyone run up the meter with their lawyer asking him/her such a stupid question? They wouldn't. Therefore, I don't believe she did.

Also, it's rather dumb to leave your car unlocked in your new neighborhood, particularly the glove box containing your valuable papers, just because someone else said you could; therefore, I don't believe that story either. WTH, she's responsible for the safekeeping of her papers so who would even ask if they should keep their glove box locked!

Big whoopee. Car, vehicle, auto, whatever, she exaggerates. Probably someone in her own home pilfered her glove box and she believes their lie, or she took the papers out herself and lost them; just blame somebody else.

It appears this change in language is a valuable tool in determining lies.

Peter Hyatt said...

peter said...
So if she had continued to use the word car instead of vehicle would that be a sign of deception?
September 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

No.

Anonymous said...

Not necessarily would the continued use of the word "car" be a sign of deception. She appears really put off and blames the neighbor as if she thought he knew everything that went on around the area. Perhaps he'd never been broken into before. Odd, but true, many rely on advice from others that is detrimental to their own welfare.

She felt safe; she wasn't. And, it could have merely been someone that followed her from the old neighborhood or a group that welcomes the new residences with burglary and tresspass to keep them under their thumb.

formerTopixNutt said...

If you were in the habit of locking your car, you wouldn't stop locking your car because you moved and someone told you that you didn't have to. I find that part of her statement strange.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps not traumatised by the theft, Buckly, but moreso by the invasion of privacy.

Breaking into the car (even though it was unlocked) is burlary of her property. Grabbing valuable papers may have b een a form of more privacy invasion in terms of getting her name, old address, etc.

Not everyone that is a victim of crime should be expected to point the finger at anyone in their home. Not everyone that is victimized should be expected to take more victimization because the aren't a cop or english major, either.

SocialWorkSara said...

"No one thinks that someone is going to go into their car and steal something". This statement is so bizarre that I don't believe a word she wrote. She said she "used to" lock her car. So, she apparently used to be someone that would think something could get stolen from her car if left unlocked. This is a load of crap.
Sounds like a LIAR who is trying to avoid responsibility for not having the Important papers. Baloney brains

Anonymous said...

Sounds like she's sensitive about the contents of the papers themselves, which may be why there's an attorney involved.