Sunday, April 5, 2015

Analyzing Tweets: Andrew Harrison

Did he apologize?

Tweets can be analyzed for truth and content.  The wording, the length, and even the punctuation is viewed, just as some standard principles, such as order indicating priority, are used.

After a basketball game, Andrew Harrison insulted an opposing player.  He later apologized via tweeting.

Was this a genuine apology?  (Or, was it an actual apology?)
Was it made willingly?

Or, is there something else found within the tweets?

"F*** that N*****" said Andrew Harrison, after losing the basketball game. The video shows an angry and disgusted Harrison.  Although statement analysis does not deal with voice inflection and body language, it is sometimes difficult to ignore.  Please see the analysis of the racist cop with the dash cam running and referenced, as well as Sergio Celis 911 call for the inability to ignore external influences.  (The racist cop referenced her dash cam, and Celis giggled while reporting his 7 year old daughter, "kidnapped.")

This was on microphone and said about player Frank Kaminsky.  The racist comment was thus picked up by the news and quickly made headlines.

Later, the subject, Andrew Harrison,  sent a tweet apologizing:

"First, i want to apologize for my poor choice of words used in jest towards a player I respect and know."

a.  The word "First" indicates that there will likely be a "second" to follow.  Indeed, he sent two more tweets after this.

b.  Note the pronoun "i" is not capitalized.

c.  Next, note that the pronoun "i" which is not capitalized is in connection to apologizing.  We note that if all the pronoun use of "i" is lower case, we attach no significance to it, as it would be his norm or baseline.  If there is a change, it becomes significant.

d.   Next note that he "wants" to apologize, rather than stating, "I apologize."  This is to create a  distance to apologizing and should use the analyst at this point to question if the apology is not something the subject wanted to do.  We then allow the rest of the statement (tweets) to guide us, either confirming or denying this view point.

Since we listen and do not interpret, we say, "he did not apologize."

e.  Note also "poor choice of words" with the word "poor" as to choice, as this may suggest minimization.  The "n word" is here considered a "poor choice."

f.  "respect" and "know":  Statement Analysis notes order as showing priority.

One might question how well the subject "knows" Frank Kaminsky.  This is because  "respect" often comes from knowing someone and most people say "know and respect."  We may not have respect for someone we do not "know", but if we "know" someone, we may be able to discern if we have respect towards them.

g.  "jest"   Note that "respect" comes before "know" regarding that which was in "jest."  We often "jest" with those we know well enough to do so.  He introduced the word "jest" as in joking.  It is difficult to ignore the audio and video and find "jest" to be credible.  This is, however, outside the element of Statement Analysis.

He then send two more tweets we can analyze for information.  This was signaled by "First" in the initial tweet.

"When I realized how this could be perceived I immediately called big frank to apologize and let him know I didn't mean any disrespect. "

a.  "When" introduces the topic or element of passage of time. Time is important, as it is given additional emphasis in the statement, along with a capitalized pronoun "I" in his statement.

Note that it took time to "realize" how this "could" be perceived, as the element of time is paramount to the message.  The word "immediately" is unnecessary, therefore, making it important. The topic of time is repeated, making it sensitive to the subject.

 One might wonder:  Did it take some time to persuade the subject into apologizing?  Does the element of time, being sensitive, show reluctance to apologize?  If so, let's look at another feature of the tweets:

b.  Capitalization.

Capitalization takes more effort in typing out a tweet than a lowercase does, showing an emphasis.  In tweets, we look for a norm or baseline from the subject, and then highlight any deviation from the norm.

The pronoun "I" is capitalized throughout, with the exception of the apology.

We also note the capitalization in the tweets, with the pronoun "I" capitalized in all but the apology.  To capitalize takes more effort.
Note that "big frank" is not capitalized.

"We had a good conversation and I wished him good luck in the championship game Monday."

Here, we note the introduction of the word "we" which indicates unity, or cooperation.  This if found, in context, about the championship game Monday.  It is likely that the two 'agreed' on this topic:  winning the championship game on Monday.

Analysis conclusion:  He did not apologize.

An analysis conclusion can lead us to what questions we would like to pose to the subject for clarification.  We prepare our questions based upon:

a.  The subject's own words
b.  The sensitivity indicators within the words.

1.  The racist remark was likely made in anger, not in "jest."

2.  The subject may have initially refused to apologize.  He was influenced, or even coerced into making it. A series of questions should be formulated regarding the word "when" as showing a skipping over of time.

Who did he talk to?
What was said in these conversations?
Was there an argument?

3.  The apology may be disingenuous to the subject.
4.  The subject likely neither knows well, nor respects "that n*****", the player he insulted.

He wanted to apologize, he said, rather than the strong "I apologize for..."

This is a subtle distancing from the ownership of wrong doing

By using three tweets, the subject allowed us to follow his use of pronouns and even his punctuation. He does not apologize, but expresses that he only "wants" to, which is a slight variation of the "law of economy" indicating distance.  It is, therefore, quite likely that he was pushed or convinced into apologizing, which may have even included lawyers or agents, and possible threats of future financial and career consequences made to him.


jen dugena said...

I just saw the show CI, it featured the case of Julie Rea Harper who was accused of killing her son. She was acquitted in the second trial (a serial killer alleged that it was he who killed the child) but she was found guilty in the first.

In Ci's interview with Harper, she was telling what happened on the night her son was killed. she used pronouns "They" (she said she thought there were two people involved) and then when she was telling how she chased and struggled with the killer through the hall of her house, she used "We".

She also said during the interview that "I didnt do it." 'How could a mother hurt her child'.

In the interview she did with ABC news, she was asked if she believes the serial killer killed her son, she said, "There is no question in my mind."

When teh confession/transcript of the serial killer was shown/read aloud to her, and she was asked "What does it do to you to hear him describe that scene?" She replied, "I'm a mother. What would it do to you?"

An excerpt of the serial killer's confession was: "I just went in a dark room & start cutting OR stabbing.."

Any thoughts?

rob said...

If a white player had said it to a black player, he would have been kicked out of school, verbally attacked, and never been able to recover from it.
If the black player had said it to a white player, no harm, no foul. No need to apologize, just move on.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


great point.

This, itself, is racism.

If we could turn back to freedom of speech and let idiots be idiots and "vote with our feet", that is, be free to choose to watch games or not, to buy pizza or not, and so on,
we'd be a lot better off.

The irony is racist language in the military.

You can kill someone but just don't say something about their race before you do.

We will train you how to kill him but just be nice before you do it.


rob said...

Wait, you played me! It was a black player speaking to a white player, Andrew Kaminsky.
I guess I was right though, no corrective active has been taken against the losing player at fault.