Monday, June 29, 2015
Understanding the Genesis of Human Behavior in Analysis: Definitions
To your opinion on human nature, itself.
There are two basic viewpoints on human nature (as well as a myriad of off-shoots) that each of us comes to where we embrace one or the other.
The decision you make impacts:
Analysis, specifically in "The Expected Versus The Unexpected", as well as in profiling.
The decision you make also impacts:
How you raise your children.
How you treat your spouse.
How you view yourself.
How you cast your vote.
How you conduct yourself at a restaurant.
In other words, whether or not you have conscious awareness of your view or not, it impacts how you think, how you see the world, how you behave, and how you interpret the behavior of others.
Both systems teach: The child is innocent of wrong doing. Yet one says the child carries a nature to naturally do wrong, while the other carries a nature to naturally do right.
This is nature.
Nurturing is the development and culturing of the child's nature.
One believes the child's natural tendency is to do wrong, while the other believes the child's natural tendency is to do good.
One believes the child is naturally narcissistic and must be taught to share;
The other believes the child is born neutral, or good, and narcissism is the result of nurture.
They are very different. What you believe will impact how you think and live.
For example: a patrol officer can become not only acutely cynical from dealing with deception, by the hour, every shift, for years, but he can also become depressed and even suicidal. This is what makes "snap shots" so terribly unfair. It is also why a patrol officer who has grown cynical can fail at detecting deception as he sees deception everywhere.
Conversely, the view often called "pollyanna" sees "the good in everyone" and can not only fail at analysis, but struggles with justice, itself, and can take upon himself a burden for humanity that he cannot bear for very long. True, the gullible are easier to teach analysis, but this viewpoint will likely undergo a great change over time, as analysis yields profiles of the subjects, themselves.
Religion plays a very powerful role in this as people will respond in a religious manner to whichever they ascribe to.
Is man born basically good, but learns evil through circumstance?
Is man born basically evil (unstable) and must be taught good, through lessons in life, and the evil thus be restricted by society?
Each one of us has one view point or the other, even if we do not speak of it, or even recognize it. For me, in interviewing, it is very easy to discern. I love interviewing and have, professionally, conducted more than 6,000 interviews, including many child interviews. Privately, however, I have done many more, as I "interview" people continually, on the phone, in the stores, out in the public, as I am always interested in learning about human nature.
So, which is it?
Are we basically good people, who due to poor choices, do bad things?
Or, are we basically bad, or "unstable" people, who must be taught not to do harm to others?
Although the "in between" crowd is...well, crowded, I will stick to one or the other, knowing the sub-sets may be argued by others.
What follows is an opportunity for you to understand those you may disagree with in life, as I will begin with the basic camp that says that man is born in instability, that is, not good, and must be both taught, and restrained, so that good may come, and then I will cover the opposite, which is the populous viewpoint today: man is born good, and through poor choices and environmental conditions, learns to do bad things.
These two view points clashed in the "penitentiary" theory where prison was to cause the offender to change. This is just one tiny outworking of the belief.
You have read here many times; What one believes, one does. Therefore, if you believe that "jihad" is your duty, you may not carry it out directly, but you will support it in others. (see recent polling in Europe on this).
If you believe in socialism, where mankind is responsible for mankind, you will want laws passed to see that this is carried out.
If you believe in freedom of speech, you will want it exercised, even when you cringe hearing that which you disagree with.
The Nazis believed that Jews betrayed them in the Treaty of Versailles, so they marginalized them, legally, through legislation, made them pariahs in the nation, which then opened the door to fines, imprisonment, and eventually, annihilation.
What we believe (the ideology), we act upon, or act "out" in society. This is how the world works. If you believe that stealing is wrong, you will refrain from stealing, or when you steal, you will have internal conflict, which may lead you to return the stolen items and make restitution.
What one believes, one will live.
What a nation believes, a nation will live.
When you read, or even on your own, conduct analysis, you are gaining opinions, whether you are cognizant of it or not, into human nature, and the opinions are piling up on you, formulating an overall impression of mankind.
The "Protestant Work Ethic" was a title given to early America in which "rugged individualism" was seen. Why was it called, specifically, the "Protestant Work Ethic"?
This was because the Protestant Reformation taught that any work a man does that to provide for himself and his family, that is lawful, is, itself, "holy", or consecrated before God. Roman Catholicism had "holy orders", or a call into ministerial life that was called "holy."
The reformation taught that sweeping a dusty floor, done properly, was pleasing to God, and was, therefore, "holy."
This belief seeped into Europe and when freedom of religion was limited, many came to America, and with them, came this work ethic. The "Protestant Work Ethic" was a driving force behind America's early success and self reliance. Without the artificial caste system of Europe, immigrants came to America with the idea that they could "be anyone I wanted to be" via opportunity due to hard work. This is why the welfare system was considered something embarrassing or even shameful. One did not need to be "Protestant" to have the "Protestant Work Ethic", as it was praised throughout America, including Roman Catholics, and America was seen as "exceptional." (Jewish mentality already embraced hard work as "holy"). This work ethic also said that if one refused to work, he was not to be fed. Charities spread across the land to help people, but it was always with the end in mind: gaining independence from others through "Yankee ingenuity" and hard work.
If one refused to work, he was not fed. I bet you have an opinion about this very thing. Whether you realize it or not, your opinion on this has a basis for it. This is where we will be examining so that you can "know yourself" better, so that you can "know others" better, and discern truth and deception in analysis.
This belief system came from what people believed about human nature.
Let's consider the two basic opposing view points on whether or not children are born basically good, or basically bad, and trace where these view points came from, what actions and activities resulted from them, and how they impact analysis.
I. The Basic ViewPoints of Humanity
II. How These View Points Reveal Themselves in Society
III. How These View Points Impact Analysis and Profiling
Since everyone of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary, it is best to begin with definitions.
"Man" is mankind, which includes "wo/man", or "she which came from man. We will examine why this was used. If "man" is gender specific, the context should indicate this.
"Sexism" must be defined, just as "racism" must be defined.
For the purpose of our study, "sexism" will be the unlawful or illicit discrimination based upon gender.
"Unlawful" may mean "against the law", legally, or may, via context, mean "wrong, inappropriate, illicit, immoral" in our study.
"Racism" is the hatred of a person or race of people, personally. It is irrational, based upon skin pigmentation.
We do we need these definitions?
Because the modern, fluid definition is continually changing. This is a form of deception and denies truth. If someone is a male, it is because they possess male sexual genitalia. If someone is black, it s because of racial identity. If subjectivity is permitted, we cannot conclude, for example, that one is a female, unless we first ask, and then hope he or she does not change his or her mind.
Therefore, if analysis shows that the author of an anonymous note is a "female", this is, literally, a "sexist" remark, that is, a discernment or discrimination based upon gender. If the analysis says, "the author is a white male", this is "racism" in the modern sense of the word.
For us, a female is defined as one born with female genitalia. A male is one born with male genitalia. An overweight person is one who is, medically, carrying more weight than it healthy for his or her frame.
Should one look in the mirror, as being very underweight, and "see" dangerously overweight, we will side with science in our definitions.
We will view both "sexism" and "racism" as "bad", or illicit, immoral, or wrong. In short, for people of faith, racism, for example, is a "sin" or "transgression" of the law they follow.
I recently read that feeding children peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in school is "racist." This came from someone who actually educates children. The educator explained her position. The child comes from Africa and is more "comfortable" with goat sandwich but is "forced" to have the "white people's lunch." The child is being "discriminated against" by "white oppressive teachers" (she is white, or at least, she identifies as white), who operate in a white, oppressive system. This is not Malcolm X or Nation of Islam, or even Al Sharpton.
This is a woman to whom your children are entrusted.
I wondered what would happen to this educator if she had moved to Kenya with her children, and demanded the Kenyan school system stop serving the "racist" goat sandwich and give her children, who are "human, too", peanut butter and jelly. I do not think she would get very far, or even her story in the news papers.
If you wish to learn about analysis, specifically profiling and anonymous letter work (including non-threatening statements), you will have to either put aside 'political correctness', or you cannot do this work.
It is this simple.
If you hate rap music's lyrics denigrating women, this will mean that you have a distaste for certain words used to describe actual females, in popular culture. It will not make you a racist.
If you believe that strength means yielding to those who are weaker, you will not be a "sexist."
A black store owner in Baltimore has reopened.
The family suffered loss during the riot and for years, has had a white worker that is like family to them, employed at the front desk.
Protesters told the owners that this is why their store was targeted, and should they continue to employ the white person, they will be, in the very least, boycotted and they will be put out of business.
If they fire the white person, they are now breaking the law, and can lose their business through law suit.
If they do not hire her, they are going to be boycotted, threatened, and will, much sooner than later, file for bankruptcy.
What should they do?
How you view this situation comes from how you view human nature.
You may not see it this way, but you will, over time.
How you analyze an anonymous author stems from what you think of human nature. If you believe that there are certain phrases more suited to men than women, you will have an opinion on who wrote it. If you are not permitted, whether it be through law, or through social coercion, to have an opinion on whether the words sound more like a male than a female, you can go no further, but must remain silent.
When the black family in Lindenhurst received the anonymous threatening letter telling them to move out of Lindenhurst, the analysis of the letter showed that it was written from, not a white racist threatening harm should they not move, but from a black female who was intimately familiar with the family, and had an empathy with the troublesome duties associated with moving, itself.
The analysis showed that the person who received the letter wrote the letter, herself. Go Fund Me plans could not be realized once the deception was uncovered.
Yet, what if it had been true?
What if a black family was living in terror, short on money, forced to move not simply out of the town, but out of their own home?
Many years ago when I was a boy, my aunt told me how she and her family suffered terror in discrimination while living in Brooklyn, with threats and some acts (she did not share details with her young nephew, but I saw the fear in her face) of terror that forced her to move from her home in Brooklyn, due to her race.
She had fought back, resisting the "white flight" that was taking place, especially since she was a teacher who loved her students, both black and white. and had a solid rapport with their parents. It was not just her "beloved Brooklyn", with all of its history, but, she said, they had overcome the "Irish need not apply" prejudices, had worked hard, and had gained acceptance into a community that she did not want to give up.
Not only was she losing her community, her roots and her home, but her husband now had to have a lengthy commute from eastern Long Island into New York City. She could (and did) get a job teaching in Suffolk County, but my uncle would now have to commute.
They had many years of fond memories of Brooklyn and told warm stories of the Brooklyn Dodgers and what life they loved was like there, yet, were forced, by racism, to leave their home.
Do you have an opinion of this?
I think that you do, and what I am looking for is the reasoning behind your opinion, not for me to know, but for you to know, so that you may:
Know not only what you think, but why you think it, so that you may:
Learn why an anonymous author chooses the words he or she chooses.
Racism is the illogical hatred of a person or persons, due to race.
Sexism is the illogical hatred of a person or persons, due to gender.
Discrimination is to make a decision. Discrimination can be righteous and moral, or it can be illicit and illegal as well as immoral. There is good discrimination (keeping your hand from touching fire) and their can be bad discrimination (hating all white people because of country music), as we define "discrimination" similar to "discernment" (it is, in a sense, discernment in action).
A few more:
"Homophobia" is the irrational fear of homosexuality.
This means that a person has a fear of homosexuals that has no basis in reality, no different than a dangerously thin person looking in the mirror and insisting that she must stop eating food due to obesity.
If someone believes that homosexuality is immoral, it does not mean that they have an irrational fear. If someone believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, it does not mean that they have irrational fear of homosexuals.
"Christophobia" is the irrational fear of Christians or Christianity. If someone believes that Christianity is wrong, or that Christian belief is not something they agree with, it does not mean that they have an irrational fear of Christ. If someone touches the water font at a Roman Catholic Church and yells, "it burns, it burns!", they may have an irrational fear of religion.
"Islamophobia" is the irrational fear of Islam. I very much fear anyone who believes that I should be put to death if I do not convert. I am even more afraid of the belief that women hold a status that should a land be conquered the women may be raped as reward. My fear goes even deeper when this is coupled with the teaching that Mohammad was the "perfect" man, knowing that he was a pedophile.
When the UK police failed to warn the public and the school of the Islamic pedophiles and rapists targeting the local children, my fear turned to anger. Why were the police silent?
They were afraid of being called "Islamophobes" and "racists" (though no one race was implicated), and this fear caused their silence, which led to 9-15 year old females being raped, with lives ruined forever.
This is the de fact imposition of Sharia Law through political correctness.
The "phobia" is the defense to keep contrary views silent.
Do you see how ideas have consequences?
1. The UK believed that "diversity" was best for society, regardless of whether the diverse cultures were positive or negative, only that they were 'diverse' meant "good."
2. The culture that came in believes that the perfect example of man came from a pedophile who taught that "foreign" women (the host country) were legitimate targets, which included the females who were not yet "women" but "children."
3. To warn the parents (and in this case, many of the girls targeted were in foster or group homes) would be "wrong" because of "Islamophobia", that is, the irrational fear of Islam.
4. The silence led to a very large number of female lives destroyed.
Therefore, our definitions must be understood before we can go further. We must understand that discrimination is neither good, nor bad, of itself, but it is the basis and criteria of the discrimination that makes it good or bad, positive or negative, good or evil.
"Sin" is "transgression" or "wrong doing." What is a "sin" to people of faith, may not necessarily be illegal in many countries. Even if "legal" the "sin" (or "transgression") remains wrong to the person's own belief system.
Profiling: To profile means to discern the:
of the person. "Profiling" has shifted in meaning and is often considered "bad" without further thought. This is because of "racial profiling" becoming an "entirely" wrong thing to do. Like most other areas in which politicians are involved, this, too, has reached the point of illogic.
Let us say that 95% of terrorists look like me: kinda short, kinda chubby, kinda ruddy. These short, chubby ruddy males are running into airports and blowing them up...
Therefore, when I am in Zambia, and enter an airport, I am immediately approached by security guards who ask me to "step over here" while they search me for explosives.
I can react in one of several ways.
1. I can say that I have been a victim of racial profiling and in order to be fair, Airport Security must take each and every person that enters this airport, and make them "step over here" for the search, making airline wait time skyrocket to 5 hours.
2. I can say, "I understand why you have pulled me aside. Please check me, but let the others go on their way through the normal security checkpoints. Better to delay me, just one person, than to punish them all.
3. I can file a suit for a zillion dollars and tell people at Go Fund Me that Zambia is discriminating against short, chubby, ruddy males and in order to save the children, they should donate money and help me raise money for human growth hormone which promises to make me taller.
"Peter, where are those statistics about homosexuality and anonymous threatening letters to be found?"
Oh, yeah, sure. Let me get the home address from my rolodex for ya. That'll go well.
I think you likely have embraced my point.
When I worked with suicidal gay teens, I did not ask, "hey, I heard you may be heterosexual, so I'm thinking that you need to go find some other help here..."
When the Salvation Army feeds people, they do not ask, "So, do you like dudes or the ladies?" before they feed the hungry stomach.
When a black family is under threat, do you want to say, "Uh, I'd like to help you but you know, people might think it racists, so you're on your own..."?
In essence, this is what UK police did.
In essence, this is what the professional victims do, as well, as each Fake Hate has consequences beyond what is known with the stolen money.
When reports came from Europe that Jews were literally being round up and gassed to death, many in America, including news paper editors, did not believe it.
They did not believe, true enough, because it sounded so incredible, but there was another reason why it was not believed across the country;
It had been said before.
"The Hun is killing, raping, plundering..." propaganda from "The Great War" (what we call, World War I) mixed truth with deception, and had left many in America (and in England) in disbelief to the reports of genocide of Jews.
When Churchill cabled Stalin that Germany was planning an invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin dismissed it as the British propaganda machinery at work again.
When Roosevelt orchestrated "Mission to Moscow" by Hollywood, it was not only propaganda to get America to accept Stalin as an ally, (who killed more than Hitler), but it showed the weakness of:
The need to propagandize the public.
The movie opens, literally, with the author of "Mission to Moscow", who was the United States ambassador to the Soviet Union. In his statement to the movie going public in America, he is deceptive.
1. Name the man?
2. Identify the deception in the statement?
Statement Analysis gets to the truth and getting there cannot be hindered by political correctness and fatalism which arises from the declaration that "no truth exists."
We cannot do this work while bowing to the god of political correctness. The truth is the truth, no matter how it might make us feel. (Ok, everyone here, "jazz hands"; none of that masculine clapping as it feels unsafe)
This sounds goofy because it is goofy, just as goofy as an educator declaring my favorite boyhood beach sandwich "racist."
Racism is illogic in action. It is also very personal.
The movie: "Gentlemen's Agreement"
"You're an anti Semite! He's an anti-Semite! You all are anti-Semites! Hell, even I am an anti-Semite!"
By the time Gregory Peck was done, the tedium was enough to make anyone anti-anything.
Having defined "racism" and "sexism" as above, along with reclaiming earlier, pre-insanity definitions of other words, we may proceed to get to the point of learning not only where a belief system has come from, but why people act (and speak) as they do, and how we, now knowing these things, can become sharper at analysis and profiling.
Even that which you whole-heartedly disagree with will help you in this work as you can learn, without embracing ideologies from which words and actions flow.
This will only increase your sharpness but it is in the learning of human nature that the greatest success in analysis may come from.
The more you learn about "what makes us tick", the better your success rate in discerning deception will be.
The higher your success rate in detecting deception, the better you will be at profiling.
The better you are at profiling, the better prepared you will be for Anonymous Authorship Identification.
Next up: The first perspective of human nature for the purpose of Statement Analysis.