Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Pop Quiz: Body Posture in Statement Analysis

"I was seated between two beautiful women" was said by me, recently, employing the 'body posture' within the sentence.  I now write it here, for you.

What does it mean?

I want you to analyze this truthful statement with your conclusion before reading the rest of the article.  

You're on the honor system to do this.


Now scroll down for today's  Statement Analysis  lesson.


Body posture within a statement is flagged, via underlining, for a specific reason.  Here is a sentence that will exhibit plainly, why this is.

1.  "My boss said for me to be at work at 9am."

2.  "My boss told me to be at work at 9am."

3.  "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9am." 

What the sense in the three above statements is noted even though each one is a communication from one in authority to a subordinate regarding being at work at the same time.

The difference in these three sentences is noted in Statement Analysis.  To the "dulled listening" that is done by most all (the untrained world), the meaning is the same.

Statement Analysis says that every word has meaning, and, as a rule, hard and fast, there is no such thing as a synonym in analysis.  The difference comes from within the subject


Each person has their own internal, subjective personal dictionary, of about 25,000 words.  Those of higher intelligence may have as many as 35,000, but on average, 25,000 is a 'safe' number.

When asked, "What did you do this morning?" the subject:

1.  Cannot say everyone that he did.  It is impossible to do so.  It would be incessant in description, therefore, the person must, first of all, decide what information he wishes to share, and what information to leave out;  this speaks to priority;

2.  Must give the order of the information, with ease coming from chronological order, as it happened, which is not taxing for the memory;

3.  Must decide, out of 25,000, which words to use;

4.  Of these specific words, the tenses must be chosen;

5.  The subject must decide where each word goes, next to which word, to make sense

of which all of this takes place in less than a micro-second in time.

This is called the "speed of transmission" as the brain, the warehouser of 25,000 words, takes precisely what it wants, in the order it wants, with the syntax it wants, in an amazingly short amount of time.

The speed of transmission is perfected through years of speaking.  Therefore, when someone says "we", it is 100% guaranteed that the brain knows it is not just one person, alone, being reference to another.

It is also why we highlight "umm" or any pause to think, as a 'slowing down' of the speed.

Now compute this with the broken sentences of self-censoring, and take it even further into deception.

To lie means to disrupt this speedy process.  The disruption is the principle cause of internal stress for the subject which negates the 'sociopaths do not feel stress for lying' argument.

With this speed of transmission, in an open statement, there are no synonyms used as their might be when someone is doing creative writing.

The best way to "prove" this is the most practical way.

When you hear someone use a change of language, point it out to him or her and ask what caused the change of language.

If you hear someone go from being a "man" to a "person, or a "person" to a "guy", for example, (If you have read enough here to move yourself away from the dulled listening, you will 'hear' it live eventually) and ask about it.  Even "jewelry" that became a "necklace" has significant meaning.

You are likely to hear, "Huh?", and "I didn't change my language" and "I didn't realize I did that" and so on.

In this speed of transmission we have the free editing process easily recognized:  the person is speaking without forethought, that is, "live" or "on the fly" (to hockey fans) and not stopping to consider each word.  This is where we may note the pace of which someone regularly speaks going through a dramatic slow down as significant enough to be "sensitive" to the person.

Now consider hearing one of the three original sentences:

1.  "My boss said for me to be at work at 9am."

2.  "My boss told me to be at work at 9am."

3.  "My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9am." 

In the first sentence, the person just "said it."  The person ("subject") did not pause to ask himself, "hmmm, should I use "said" or should I use "told"?" but rather quickly, without disruption, used "said" as the preferred choice.  Certainly the person with 25,000 words in his head knows the word "told", too, but chose "said", instead, without disrupting the speed of transmission.

The second person either:

a.  Said the exact same thing as the other two; or

b.  Gave us additional information from the slight variation in wording.

Statement Analysis teaches (b)

This person said, "My boss told me to be at work at 9am" instead of the word "said."

In the English language, we find that "told" is used more often in:

a.  Authoritative situations
b.  One way informing
c.  Arguments 
d.  Instructional 

It has a 'firmer' feel to it, and may even be less 'polite' than "said."  In the second sentence, it is authoritatively communicated and is most certainly not a request.  In fact, this simple difference in wording is likely causing some readers to think that:

1.  The use of  "told" instead of "said" may even intimate possible consequences for being late.  
2.  The subject may have a history of being late; or
3.  Others in the company have been late; 
4.  The boss may be difficult, demanding, punctual, hypocritical, harsh, and so on, or may have a short fuse...

and on and on we go because "told" has ow raised questions for us that "said" may not have.  

The difference between sentence one and sentence two may have a difference in personalities, temperament and situations!  These two sentences do not communicate the exact same thing.  

The third sentence (3) goes even further:

"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9am" not only carries the weight of "told" over "said" but as the subject is going into memory, and into the 25,000 word dictionary, he is adding a word that is not necessary to complete the sentence. 

Statement Analysis principle:  Unnecessary words are deemed very important to analysis.  

That the third sentence brought in, via memory, the boss' body posture, we note that this is likely due to an "increase of tension" on the part of the subject, as he recalls and tells us "what happened" via the high speed process transmitting language from the brain to the tongue. 

If sentence two raised questions about atmosphere, mood, and even history, sentence three adds "tension" to the picture, and for the trained Interviewer ("Analytical Interviewing") this addition of body posture as seen in just one word, will cause Interviewer to ask follow up questions and not simply 'move on' in the interview process.  

It was important enough for the subject to add it in, it is important enough for us to learn why. 

Sometimes the context itself can tell us why without having to ask, but sentence three has given us additional information, while the dulled listening that is normally done in society, has missed it. 

Hyper-analysis.  "I was seated between two beautiful women" uses body posture.  "This must have been "very tense"; perhaps his wife was jealous, or...".  

Hmm.  We must always remain open minded when we find principle, as to the reason for its application. 

The two women were my wife and daughter, not two strangers, described as "beautiful women" as a wrong understanding might have led someone to believe:  my wife peers with anger, explaining why body posture was in my wording.  Not so.  

Getting ready to attend a church in Bucksport, Maine,  my wife and daughter inadvertently dressed in blue skirts with red sweaters.  Both love fashion, and thought they were 'pushing the envelop' with blue and red, but neither realized how closely they had dressed until we were about out the door.

Analysis Conclusion:

I was actually recalling sitting together, feeling proud of them when I said the above statement, and later wrote it in the article.

 We visited a church we had not visited in years which meant the last time we visited, Christina was a lot shorter than Heather.  This posture was in my mind, when I wrote the statement:  how I used to put them on either side of me, at this location, when Christina was much younger.  It was a pleasant memory.  However, upon visiting and seeing people I had not seen in years, I felt a bit of apprehension.  What would they say?  Would they think, "he's gotten old"?  What would I feel when I see others, especially some of advanced years?  Would they be in health?  Would the same wisdom of the ages be in their voices?  Did they miss us?  Would they feel a bit...negative, for having not had us visit in so long?   This was compounded by the fact that I know that Heather felt a bit nervous, and it was further compounded to by my knowledge that Christina was going to be told, likely several times, "you've grown!" which might be a bit awkward.

There was an increase in 'tension' in the wording,  though not altogether negative.  There are a lot of different ways I could have expressed my sentiment, but my brain went to body posture, and although not terribly serious, it still shows an increase in emotion, without pre thought, within my words.

Visiting the church was a great experience and one that, in spite of the drive, was repeated.

When we cite principle, we must stretch our imaginations to wonder why, and be open for any possibility, seeking to learn the reality from the context, and in cases where there is no context, specifically from the Analytical Interview.

Had I heard this statement, I would have needed to ask questions:

Where were you?
What were you doing?
Who was there?
Had you seen them before?
What are they like?
What do they think of you?
What was the interaction like?

and so on....


Buckley said...

I predicted it was your wife and daughter. "I was seated..." shows some apprehension and lack of control in the situation, emphasizing how others will perceive you.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

"I was seated between two beautiful women"

two beautiful women"

Before i scrolled down to read the conclusion. The word "beautiful" caught my attention.

The need to say "beautiful" suggested there maybe a close personal connection (yes, it could also be language you use in describing "beauty" eg, a flower, "beautiful" personality, aura etc..

This would be the point, (in analytical terms) where i would ask (going on just that one sentence) what is your subjective personal internal definition of "beautiful"

Or, am i taking this principle to far? :)

Sus said...

Begins with the strong pronoun "I". Claims the action.

"was seated" contradicts "I" in that it is passive.

"seated between" shows position and thus tension.

"between" and "two" is a subtle change in reality. Why?

"beautiful women" defines how he sees them, or how they see each other.

So on one hand he claims sitting between them, on the other he is made to. There is tension. They are both beautiful. Is there trouble, jealousy between the women? Am I way off??

New England Water Blog said...

Do we have another case of "self-inflicted hate" here?

Sus said...

Gosh darn it! Quit giving quizzes for me to fail. :-)

Anonymous said...

Good golly miss molly! You all certainly do read a lot more into one simple sentence than I do. For sure, my mind did not stray to any tension between the women or Peter who related the simple position of sitting between two beautiful women.

I will admit however, that I would have failed the simple but profound statement. I had quickly imagined that Peter was in a meeting and either sat down in the only vacant seat between these two beautiful women who were likely other counselors, or strangers, or either they seated themselves beside him.

A miserable failure since it turns out they were his wife and daughter. Duh on my part.

Peter, you sure do think a lot about what other people think! Wowzer, I almost never do this. I just try to put my best foot forward and go on, in full self-esteem and let the chips fall where they may. But when I do think too much about what others think, it usually turns out to be a mistake on my part, when I don't think anybody even cares.

Buckley said...

Lol- if I cheated on the quizzes, I'd wanna sit next to you in class, Sus.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I came THIS close to accusing Buckley of cheating but just didn't have the heart.


Buckley said...

I did not cheat. I remembered a story about shopping for ice box cookies (?) and a look you got from Heather for talking to a mom and daughter and concluded you would not risk calling other women beautiful. That and your adoration for them is obvious.

Sus said...

Sorry, Buckley. I don't let people copy. I go down all by my self. Lol. But thanks.

Buckley said...


John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Susan Smith: 'I loved my boys'

Wednesday marks 20 years since a South Carolina jury found Susan Smith guilty of murdering her two young sons, and the convicted killer wants the world to know she’s not a “monster.”

In an exclusive letter written to The State, Smith reveals new details surrounding the murders of her sons, 14-month-old Alex and 3-year-old Michael.

The boys were reported missing by their mother on October 25, 1994. Smith initially told police that a black man carjacked her at gunpoint with her children in the back of the car.

The case made headlines. Smith even went on national television, making tearful pleas for the boys’ safe return.

In a stunning turn of events, Smith eventually confessed to police that she strapped her children into the back seat of her car and pushed them into a lake, drowning them.

Following a highly publicized trial, Smith was sentenced to life in prison but spared the death penalty.

Now, at the age of 43, Smith wrote in the letter that she “was a good mother and I loved my boys.”

It was alleged that Smith murdered her sons to carry on an affair with a wealthy man who didn’t want children. However, Smith wrote in the letter that there was no motive behind the killings and that it wasn’t planned.

“The thing that hurts me the most is that people think I hurt my children in order to be with a man. That is so far from the truth,” she wrote.

“The only reason I lied is because I didn’t know how to tell the people who loved Michael & Alex that they would never see them again,” Smith added.

Smith wrote she planned to kill herself and leave a note explaining what happened because she didn’t think she could face her family when the truth was revealed.

“This is only a small piece of the story,” Smith wrote at the closing of the letter.

Smith remains incarcerated at Leath Correctional Institution in Greenwood. She will be eligible for parole in November 2024.

I would like to read the full letter.

Unknown said...

"I was seated between two beautiful women".

This statement starts with 'I', but 'was seated' is passive. Did you not have a choice of where you sat? On an airplane possibly?

"Between two beautiful women", describes the women as one entity. They are not given a comparative description such as their hair color, or their age, etc, and they are called 'beautiful', rather than 'attractive', or something more impersonal.

I'm guessing that it was your wife and daughter, and maybe you guys were on an uncomfortable plane trip?

Anonymous said...

They were seated in church, Jen Ow. I flunked the test. I thought initially that Peter was seated between two beautiful women in a meeting, not necessarily by choice so much as by happenstance, and I do not believe Peter would ever seek out beautiful women to sit with other than his wife. Peter is not a cheater.

Juliet said...

I failed because I thought you had been seated at an event, by someone else, between two beautiful women you may or may not have known. To me, 'seated' is generally more formal, and means to have been shown where to sit by another, in a designated seat. Your having been 'seated' made me think it was at that point you discovered yourself between two beautiful women. I also thought you might have been uncomfortable, as one has no choice where to sit if one is 'seated' - because you used body posture, I thought there might have been tension. I did not think the women were necessarily related, as you had been seated between them, though they may have been related, or might have known one another, and you them, depending on the type of event and seating arrangements, but as you didn't indicate who they were, I assumed no relationship, or even that you had ever met or seen them before. So, that's a mega-fail for me. :-/

Unknown said...

Full disclosure, I saw Buckley's comment about predicting it was your wife and daughter as I scrolled down. ;-)

I focused in on 'was seated', and the idea that you didn't have a choice of seat as the reason for tension. The only situation I could think of where there is no choice of seating is on a plane.

(Also, my husband just got back from a terrible work trip, so bad flights are on my mind.)

I like these quizzes, and reading how everyone came to their conclusion!

John Mc Gowan said...

"I was seated between two beautiful women"


Myself, personally. I have never heard anyone use the word "seated" either spoken, and, as far as i'm aware, read in a book, in this context. It sounds awkward. Now, i'm no lexicographer, or pertain to be grammatically correct, far from it.

"I was sitting"


"I was sat"

Rolls off the tongue easier for me.



Or "Sat"

These 3 words, or a derivative of. Should we still note possible tension?

Bas (The Netherlands) said...

Thanks for this great blog Peter!
I find Statement Analysis to be very interesting.
I'm from The Netherlands, so English is not my native language.
But I can understand alot of what you teach since you explain it so very well, and you also explain by using real examples.

Thanks for giving some book ideas to dive into, I've ordered some from Amazon ("I Know You Are Lying", "Don't Be Decieved" and "When I say No, I Feel Guilty").

Also, I'm always looking forward to your new blogposts!
They are much appreciated.

Keep up the good work!


Buckley said...

I'm not sure why but I infer that in "I was seated" the tension is in the setting- those with eyes on all three. If it had been "I was sitting between..." I would have felt the tension was coming from within the three- he was nervous about being between the beautiful women.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Buckley

I guess education, upbringing, social status etc, along with
regionality dialect influence our language. Slang an so forth.

This is the beauty of the principle "subjective Internal dictionary"

GetThem said...

It sounds like something an older guy was saying to be polite. Maybe at a wedding where an older gent would say "I was seated between 2 beautiful woman" or "a rose between two thorns. Someone over 60. Also, there is something about referencing "sitting" but I can't remember!

Tania Cadogan said...

It is a sign that Peter refers to them as Beautiful women, Christina is fast growing up into a beautiful young woman whilst Heather is already a beautiful young woman.
It also points to Peter minimizing his perception of himself.
He sees the women he was sat between as beautiful, that is better looking than himself ( a short, stocky, ruddy faced irishman)
The seated indicates some tension, it may be due to the situation the three were in at that moment, it may also be that Peter privately doesn't think he is worthy to be between two beautiful women and wonders how he got to be so lucky.
He is married to one and the father to the other, a thorn between two roses :)

Anonymous said...

I would not have thought of any tension existing between Peter and the two beautiful women, even if they had been total strangers to him as Peter does not appear to me to be a man who would be uncomfortable around, with, or seated near beautiful women. Although I do not perceive Peter as being a cheater, or even flirtatious, he strikes me as one who comfortably fits in anywhere with anyone.

Since the two women turned out to be his wife and daughter, they also do not present any hint of tension between themselves or Peter. I can't imagine how anyone could come up with the tension idea where none exists, nor is any tension mentioned.

Sometimes some of you people blow me away with some of your ideas that never were even alluded too in the first place. I mean, seriously!

Anonymous said...

This monster mother murderer Susan Smith makes we want to puke. She should have been given the death penalty like she gave to her babies.

She is flat out lying, denying that she killed to be with a wealthy man she was dating. I remember the bald face lie she is referring too. The boyfriend she had been dating was the well-known and popular son of a wealthy businessman in their area. She had been intimate with him (and a few others) for quite sometime and was hot on his trail. She schemed to marry him and tried to hang on as tight as a tick on a dog.

She had written a lengthy letter pleading for their relationship and he had written her one back, outlining that he did not want to be a ready man father to someone else's kids. It wasn't long after this that she murdered the kids. I've wondered if he suffered any conscience over their deaths, thinking he might have helped cause her to kill them with his cold-hearted response. (BTW, it turned out later on that she had also been sexually intimate with his father!) The letters were made public at the time. Now she's denying this??? Liar.

I remember the first time I saw her on TV, with her little ones sitting at a birthday cake and with gifts, the youngest one in a high chair, the other one seated at the table; neither one moving a muscle. She had this little 'party' so well orchestrated that these kids were afraid to even touch the gifts or the cake, including the little one.

She oh so cautiously opened the presents for the baby and feed them a tiny piece of cake. Again, not a smile, they were so scared, like they were afraid she might slap them in the face any second; which it appeared to me, she had done before. One would think little kids having a birthday party with cake and pretty presents would be so excited and happy, but not these. They were too scared of her.

I remember saying at the time: She killed those kids, and this was before she ever gave the first interview. Then when she did, it was so obvious that she was trying to whimper a fake cry with dry eyes. There was never a doubt in my mind that she killed her babies. I hope she is NEVER released.

Unknown said...

The idea that tension existed comes from the SA principle that when body posture is introduced into a statement by the subject, it is often due to an increase in tension.

This principle is explained in the rest of the article, and Peter also explains why posture entered into his statement.

GetThem said...

Ha, ha Tanya, I hope you are quoting Peter on that self description! I'm sure you must be, but if not, I'd just like to say in your defense Peter, you don't strike me as ruddy and short!!! I like your analysis btw Tanya. :)

Lemon said...

This was a good exercise for me in remembering context and asking questions.

Anonymous said...

I have gone back and reread this statement, "I was seated between two beautiful women" and there is nothing in this statement that implies that Peter was feeling any pressure, tension, or a nagging feeling of being uncomfortable, or anything else out of the ordinary in being seated between these two beautiful women.

The reader easily surmises this is a man who made this statement inasmuch as it would be highly unusual for a woman to say, "I was seated between two beautiful women." She might say I was seated between two 'other' attractive or very attractive women, but she would not say 'two beautiful women', implying that she herself is an unattractive woman. Since this was not the case here, there was no other judgment to make other than this was a man who was seated "between two beautiful women."

There is no implication of any personal feelings that were being felt by the man. There is nothing that identifies these two women as being in a tense situation, or that the man feels any tension towards them. The phrase "I was seated" is a very common one; it could be used anywhere from being seated in a restaurant, to a theatre, to a church, to a classroom setting, to a doctors reception office, to a meeting, to you name it. It is used in any climate or social situation.

It does not say I was plopped down between two beautiful women, OR I slunk over to a chair and sat down between two beautiful women, OR not being properly dressed, I felt lower than a dog when I sat down between two beautiful women, OR I eyeballed these two beautiful women seated alone so I rushed over and grabbed the seat between them before someone else beat me to it, OR I spied these two beautiful women sitting over against the wall with a space between them and it was obvious there was tension between them so I ran over and sat myself down between them; it SAYS, SIMPLY; "I was seated between two beautiful women." And THAT my friends, is the end of the statement.

It does not imply that this man feels himself to be unworthy, poorly dressed and feeling insecure, unattractive or ugly, short and studgy or pudgy, or that my eye was twitching as I was seated between two beautiful women; thereby making himself feel apprehensive and uncomfortable in being seated between two beautiful women. Some of you have read a buncha crap into the statement that is not in the statement, NOR is it implied.

As for Peter's appearance, he is an attractive man and should not feel out of place wherever he goes, nor is there any implication that he does feel out of place or unattractive; he is NOT a short, stocky (implying hefty and possibly somewhat overweight) ruddy faced looking Irishman.

I have seen photos of Peter (we all have)and he was well-dressed, of average to above average height and above average appearance, not overweight or stocky/hefty, nor did he appear to be ruddy faced, as if he had just belted down the whole bottle of schnopps, or was out of breath. I repeat; he was well dressed, clean shaven and well-kempt, carried himself well, and obviously was adept at fitting into any social situation, no clumsy bumbler or slouch in the presence of beautiful women.

I do not get it, how a single one of you could read anything 'posture wise' or otherwise into this statement when there is nothing in the statement that implies anything other than "I was seated between two beautiful women." Even in rereading Peters' analysis of the statement, there is STILL nothing that alters the statement that was made by him that could have any meaning or implication that would pertain to THIS particular statement other than exactly what it says. The end.

Anonymous said...

Well damnit. I am still trying to figure out where I went wrong in my above analysis of the one statement made by Peter; "I was seated between two beautiful women." I am still amiss at getting anything negative or tension building out of a positive statement; obviously made by a man who enjoys the company of beautiful women, already having two in his life.

It's all in how you look at the statement, whether you are looking for something negative, which isn't there, or whether you are looking for something positive which this IS a positive statement, as it identifies the two women as being beautiful! If anything, I am reading it in a positive light.

To say, "I was seated between two beautiful women" is a positive statement. This could mean the male being seated between two beautiful women was delighted, happy, feeling great about himself being seated between them, on top of the world so to speak.

I can't waste the day dwelling on this; so Peter, would you please kindly enlighten me as to where I can make something negative out of a positive statement, without letting my imagination run wild with me, which seems to be the case in those statements where posters found everything negative under the sun in the statement; "I was seated between two beautiful women?" I'd be ever so grateful.

Sus said...

I'm not Peter, but I can answer. It's not necessarily negative. It's a principle of SA. Stating position shows tension. So by stating he was seated, he gave away there was tension.

jen-d said...


I would like to request for Peter and/or anyone's perspective on whether I'm reading too much into this Facebook post which a newly married female sibling of mine liked & so appeared on my timeline.

The FB post links to a article about sexual assault and is accompanied by the below text:

"The truth is that rapists aren't these evil villains hiding in lairs. They're friends and loved ones, and in A LOT of cases, HAVE NO IDEA THEY DID ANYTHING WRONG. They've heard "no means no" before, but for whatever personal reasons, they think the assault and rape they did is "different" and "not the same thing"
I wish I knew more than one case where I heard a guy's response to a friend is, "but I *know* you want this"
This is why we need to re-evaluate how we handle consent in this country. The enthusiastic consent rules are a damn good thing and we need to keep this dialogue going. I've been in far too many discussions recently where I hear "If they don't ever say no, it's not rape" "if they don't fight back it's not rape" "if they had sex before with each other, it's not rape" "you can't rape your boyfriend/wife/etc" "if they don't go to the police, there was no crime". If you think any of that, you're honestly causing part of the problem.
We simply need to talk about this."

I really dont know what to specifically ask. Am I reading too much if I suspect that my sibling has felt the same way as the text in the FB post? I would like to directly ask her but I do not know how to word my question without it being too stupidly assuming or without her getting defensive.

Or as based on the text accompanying the article link, is it fair to say that my suspicions may have merit and my asking her may be the right thing to do?

I would sincerely appreciate anyone's take on this. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Sus, I appreciate your answer but it still does not measure how negative could arrive out of positive. If Peter had said 'I was seated between two beautiful women when my knees started knocking together', I might have been able to see tension in such a statement, but this is not the case. No where in his statement is there any implication that he was uncomfortable or tense, nor were they.

This would be no different than me saying I was snoozing peacefully on the back seat while my handsome husband drove us to Chattanooga. This is a positive statement and there is nothing negative about this other than the possibility that I might have been lying in an uncomfortable position, but since I did not say this, therefore, no one can second-guess that I was tense due to being uncomfortable.

Unknown said...

Anon 12:39,

In this paragraph Peter explains the reason that posture, and emotion/tension entered his wording. He remembered sitting with his wife and daughter when she was younger, which was a pleasant memory, but he was also a bit apprehensive about see members of the church after not seeing them in years.

"We visited a church we had not visited in years which meant the last time we visited, Christina was a lot shorter than Heather.  This posture was in my mind, when I wrote the statement:  how I used to put them on either side of me, at this location, when Christina was much younger.  It was a pleasant memory.  However, upon visiting and seeing people I had not seen in years, I felt a bit of apprehension.  What would they say?  Would they think, "he's gotten old"?  What would I feel when I see others, especially some of advanced years?  Would they be in health?  Would the same wisdom of the ages be in their voices?  Did they miss us?  Would they feel a bit...negative, for having not had us visit in so long?   This was compounded by the fact that I know that Heather felt a bit nervous, and it was further compounded to by my knowledge that Christina was going to be told, likely several times, "you've grown!" which might be a bit awkward. 

There was an increase in 'tension' in the wording,  though not altogether negative.  There are a lot of different ways I could have expressed my sentiment, but my brain went to body posture, and although not terribly serious, it still shows an increase in emotion, without pre thought, within my words."

Juliet said...

Jen-d : Even if it is out of keeping with her usual FB activity, your sister liking that page, or any page, doesn't mean it necessarily relates to her personally. Even if she had posted the link on her own page, it wouldn't have to relate to her personally, as the post is about educating people in what constitutes rape, helping pass on that information, and to get people talking about it. She might be mortified if it seemed you were assuming anything about her on account of a 'like' - on the other hand, you're her sister, and if you intuit something is wrong, you could ask her if there's anything round that post she herself needs to talk about, as she liked it, or was she just doing the good FB citizen thing. Err on the side of caution if you decide to say anything, as it could sour relations terribly if she thought you were assuming things on account of her 'like'. People like and post all manner of things without it necessarily being a reflection of what is going on in their own lives, especially those who have wide interests and a well developed concept of social responsibility. FB is great in some respects, but it has a lot to answer for in others. Tread carefully, think through her possible reaction and any consequences, and if you don't really need to go there, don't - she's an adult who read and liked that post, so I'd wait and see if she, herself, starts talking about it - that's my take, hope it helps.

Unknown said...

Hi jen-d,

I don't know if I would be too worried about her 'liking' something, (as in it meaning that she is having a personal issue with the topic). She may just generally agree, or may have just found the article interesting.

If you want to discuss it without pressuring her, you could always just bring it up in terms of:

'I read that article you posted on rape, what was your take on it".


'Did you read that article on Cracked, I did and I thought xxxxx'

Both would give her a chance to tell you her opinion, without seeming like you are pressing her for direct info.

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow, your post @ 1:49 goes into detail concerning Peter's article that he posted AFTER he told us to analyze his simple one sentence statement before reading the analysis, "I was seated between two beautiful women." He asked us to give our opinions BEFORE going on to the article. This is what I have done, without running wild with my imagination and analyzing a situation that does not exist in his statement. He gives no hint as to who he is sitting between. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

Haven't we been taught that if the subject doesn't say it, we can't say it for him? Yep, we have.

Sure, plenty of negative tension can be found in the follow up article if this is what one is looking for, but THIS is not what Peter told us to do in the exercise. We were not supposed to read ahead prior to posting our comments.

I drew my conclusion based on the simple positive statement he made: "I was seated between two beautiful women" without any hint of where he was seated, or between whom, or what he was mulling over in his mind; when there was no inference made to any of these matters in the simple statement. All this came later after reading the article.

I submit that I am likely the only one here who gave his statement a fair and balanced opinion. However, I am not looking to break my arm while patting myself on the back; I am asking for Peter's professional opinion, telling me just HOW I am supposed to read something negative into a positive statement, having no other info to go on other than the short statement; otherwise I will never be able to pass statement analysis 101 even after sitting here and considering the merits of it for several years now? Waiting patiently, Peter. Respectfully;

Anonymous said...

I apologize Jen Ow, it was your post @1:45, not 1:49. My bad. typo.

Anonymous said...

Jen-d, you may find my opinion different than those others posted. But since you asked, and without pussy-footing around with it, I will tell you exactly what I feel about this, starting with the first sentence made by your sister and going no further.

She makes excuses for the rapist where there is none, and I think that you, in your heart of hearts, knows this. Sure, she lightens up later, but she has already told you how she really feels about the rapist;

To quote: "The truth is that rapists aren't these evil villains hiding in liars." "They're friends and loved ones and in a LOT OF CASES, HAVE NO IDEA THEY DID ANYTHING WRONG." OH.MY.GOD.!!!!

That right there says it all. No need to go any further. Your sister makes an excuse for the rapist. BUUUUULLshyt! The rapist knows fully well he has violated the body of a member of the opposite sex, causing this poor victim mental pain and anguish for the rest of their lives. And YOUR SISTER finds this okay, claiming that the rapists doesn't know any better? What planet are they living on?

I wouldn't even bother to try to have an intelligent conversation with her because you can't. Waste of time.

Unknown said...

Hi Anon,

I guess I'm missing what you are looking for as an answer, further than the detailed explanation that Peter already gave of the SA principle, and his detailing of his actual emotions and thoughts behind his statement?

You have asked 5-6 times, 'Where are you people getting this idea of tension from this simple statement', and the answer has been posted repeatedly, both in the analysis, and by comments offering clarification.

The idea of tension comes from Peter's inclusion of his posture, ('seated') in the statement.

I'd like to understand what you are asking to see if it's something that I am missing, and need to brush up on myself.

Anonymous said...

Too be more specific Jen Ow; I am right now, at this very moment, SEATED in front of my computer.

Prior to this, I WALKED in here from my bedroom.

Prior to that, I SAT down in front of the TV and ate dinner.

I COOKED the dinner, hamburger steaks and home fries with iced tea.

This morning I WATERED my flower boxes and flower beds.

I WASHED some left over dishes.

I went to the mailbox and TOOK OUT the mail.

Last night I LAID DOWN on my bed and slept.

Not one single action I described above implies that I am OR WAS under any tension, nor is my mind running a hundred miles an hour looking for any tension, nor am I manufacturing any by the wild imaginations of my mind. I don't have any!

If I had been under any tension, I would have said so, so don't try to read something into any of these statements THAT ISN'T THERE!!

To quote from Peters Statement Analysis teachings:

"If the subject doesn't say it, you can't say it for him/her".

You're missing what I'm looking for????! How much more specific can I be! I'm asking to PLEASE tell me how I can make something negative out of something positive! Peter made a POSITIVE statement: "I was seated between two beautiful women." No more, no less. I give up.

Unknown said...

Some of the things that you listed are postures, such as 'seated', 'sat' & 'laid down'.

Some of them are actions, such as 'cooked', 'watered', and 'washed', etc.

Posture is the position of the body, not an action.

As Peter's example showed, the sensitivity, or inclusion of posture, is not necessarily negative, but can denote emotion or tension, which further questions would uncover. What I took away from this exercise was a reminder that when we come upon statements like this in analysis, we need to keep an open mind about the cause of the sensitivity.

I don't think anyone meant to 'make a negative' out of it. I stuck strictly to the principle that the inclusion of posture denotes tension, and looked for that. (Which I assume Peter expected us to do, giving him the chance to teach us to use caution in coming to a conclusion.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong Peter!

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow, every one of the things I listed required posture AND actions. I performed an action when I seated myself at my computer, when I sat down to eat and when I laid down to sleep. I STOOD when I cooked, when I watered the flowers and when I washed the dishes, etc. Peters position of being seated also required the action of physically sitting down. Your analogy does not delineate the difference between the two so far as one causing tension, e.i. being seated, but not the other.

You are saying that the inclusion of posture denotes tension; when guess what, in every action I outlined there was an action and a posture stance taken in order to perform these actions. Not making sense. In not a single one of those postures given by me was I feeling any tension, nor did I imply that I was.

I am not a troubled person, per 'se, although I have plenty of reasons to be; I do not manufacture things to let my imagination run wild with, I am not overworked, not a panicky person (if I had been I would have killed myself long ago);

but NOW I am starting to find some tension in just trying to untangle this ONE STATEMENT as to how I can read something negative into a positive statement when there was no connotation of any negative feeling, and when we have been taught that if the "subject doesn't say it we can't say it for him". He didn't.

Lordy, Lordy, let's just hang it up, shall we? Thanks anywayz for trying to help.

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Anonymous, i think you are missing the point.

When body posture is introduced into a statement, it indicates tension.
There is a need for the subject to say sat,stood, laid, knelt, which would cause the analyst to ask why they needed to include it.

You gave examples some of which, as Jen Ow correctly pointed out were postures and some were actions.
Even though body posture was involved, you made no mention of it.

Prior to that, I SAT down in front of the TV and ate dinner.
Here you tell us you sat down in front of the TV and ate dinner, all that was needed to say was i ate dinner in front of the TV.
You wouldn't usually be standing/kneeling/lying down to eat dinner, the normal and expected would be you sat.
That you felt the need to include sat would cause me to ask what else was going on?

Last night I LAID DOWN on my bed and slept.
The normal is to lie down and sleep in a bed, it is the normal and expected.
You don't stand in bed to go to sleep or kneel to go to sleep.
That you felt the need to include your body position would cause the analyst to ask what else was going on at bed time, were you alone and so on.

You performed various actions yet did not feel the need to say in each case your body position, this is because you did the expected and knew we, the reader would know your body posture during the action.

When someone introduces body posture, there is tension of some kind, it can be due to worry about burning dinner, falling over whilst watering the flowers, it could be due to having someone else with you watching or supervising, it could be someone you don't like or you have had a disagreement with them.
it can be any of a multitude of reasons, it is the analysts job to seek out the why the need to include body posture.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'll bite on that explanation Hobnob, but it still doesn't add up, the reason being: Peter could not have said "I was between two women" or "I was between two beautiful women" without telling us what position he was in, exactly HOW was he positioned between these two women? You get the point. He was SEATED, not lying, not standing, not bending over, not dancing with; he was seated, which is not an action once he is seated.

But, I'm going to let the issue go for the time being. Maybe I'll see it differently later on.


Juliet said...

I think Anon has a fair point at 7.27 - Peter needs to let us know he was sitting in order for us to envisage the moment as it was. He could have chosen to convey the information differently: 'A beautiful woman was sieated on either side of me', and we could still gather that he also was sitting - but that's not how he wanted to say it, as he chose not to. I wonder, if he had put it that way, if it would mean that he had sensed tension in them, whilst he himself was relaxed, because the posture is attached only to them. Or would it just be information necessary to creating the picture, with the posture of the women not needing to signifyi anything to him about them? What if he haid said, two beautiful women and I were sat, myself between them?' Would it mean they were all experiencing tension? I don't know the answers, just asking the questions.

He can't convey what he is doing without actually saying It. If he says 'I was between two beautiful women' it sounds clumsy and we don't know he was sitting. He could convey the information without saying it, by using a longer, sentence but that would be hard work and probably not how anyone would spontaneously speak. So, Anon has to be right there - Peter telling us he is seated is necessary scene setting so it doesn't also have to mean he felt any tension - one would need more information in order to draw a conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Juliet, for understanding my point; or position, shall we say. Actually, there are several key points here, not just one. 1) Peter used the word "beautiful" in describing the two women. This implies a happy feeling, pleasant thoughts, appreciation for beautiful women; NOT tension building.

2) He uses the word "seated" which implies relaxed, comfortable, NOT tension, since he did not express any tension. We have been taught: "If the subject doesn't say it, we can't say it for him". He does not say my knees were knocking as I was seated between two beautiful women, for fear my wife would see me there and might have a hissy fit, or any other word of definition that might describe any tension. Had he stumbled and fallen into the seat and this is how he landed there, I could see the tension but there is no such scene having been set. Since there was nothing negative about his being 'seated', this implies personal choice.

3) Neither does he say or imply there was any tension between the two beautiful women he had been seated between. They could have been leaning towards each other over him, towards each other whispering together, smiling or frowning, there is no connotation of their feelings being expressed; or the three could have been talking together or ignoring each other entirely. Again, "if the subject doesn't say it, we can't say it for him."

4) Had he said he was standing between two beautiful women I might have wondered if he was having a drink with them, having an unpleasant discussion with them or sharing comments during a business meeting, or any number of other such circumstances; any of which might have led to one wondering if there was tension there, but he does not say this. He was SEATED between them, through his own choice or otherwise, there is no inference as to how he got there, good or bad.

5) Later, while reading the article which we had been told NOT to read prior to making our comments analyzing his brief statement; we learn that it was his wife and daughter he was seated between, which DOES NOT imply any negativity or tension concerning their beauty, only remarkable thoughts of them as he is seated between them; 5) but does delineate his negative thoughts that wander into other areas of tension as he is seated there; such as, they had not been to church for a long time, how much his daughter had grown and how this might make her feel uncomfortable if comments are made about this, and so on; but nothing tension building concerning their BEAUTY or his having been SEATED between them.

Peter's tension comes from his wandering thoughts and NOT from his position of being seated between two beautiful women!

Anonymous said...

BTW Hobnob, while I understand the point you are making in your definition of it being tension building in my use of the word, "I was seated in front of the TV while eating dinner", "I am seated in front of my computer" and so on; then do not mention that I stood as I cooked dinner, washed dishes, watered flowers, etc., the problem with this is that I was NOT feeling any tension even though I unnecessarily describe myself as sitting, which you believe denotes tension when I was not under or hiding any tension as I did those things.

NOW, here's where you are a little off base: As I STOOD washing the dishes, I was a little annoyed at having left the dishes and letting them accumulate, which you had no way of knowing, nor did I imply my disgust at leaving the dishes in the first place;

as I STOOD watering the flower boxes and flower beds, I noticed that some insects I had been trying to destroy on some of my flowering shrubs had returned which was very irritating to me, so right there you might have picked up some tension, but you didn't, which is understandable inasmuch as how could YOU know I had some pesky little insects out there eating down my most beautiful flowering shrub when I did not say so?

Finally, as I STOOD and moved about cooking dinner, how could you know that it was uncomfortably hot in the kitchen due to the air conditioning was not putting out adequate cool air? You didn't because I didn't say so.

My point IS, that if there was any tension in any of the things I did that I mentioned as having done that day, you missed it entirely in your analysis, believing that in my saying I was "SEATED" implied tension, when there was no tension in any of those things I did while seated; but there easily COULD have been tension in those chores I did while standing, but did not mention what was actually going on as I did those 'standing' things.

What I am saying is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to second guess my thoughts precisely as to whether I am having some tension whether I am sitting or standing, or that I am hiding something in the use of the words seated, sitting, stood or standing. "If the subject does not say so, we cannot say it for him."

jen-d said...

Thank you Juliet and Jen Ow.

Juliet said...

Jen-d - l'd take Jen Ow's advice over mine, what Jen Ow says is less likely to put your sister on the defensive.

Anonymous said...

i was in a bar. i was seated between two beautiful women. one was at the far end of the bar, and the other was 5 stools away from me. there were other people between us. the one at the far end of the bar was standing, not seated, but you assumed she was seated also didn't you. i did not lie though by saying i was seated between two beautiful women unless your opinion of what beautiful means is different than mine. i hope you weren't klowning around with that girl.

Unknown said...

I appreciate the shift back to focusing on statement analysis again lately rather than political posts. Thank you Peter!

Peter I was wondering if you would do an analysis on the statement from the hunter who killed "Cecil the Lion". He says he thought he was doing everything legally, and implies that the local guides he hired had misled him. Obviously the guides broke the law but I'm wondering if the American hunter really didn't know that he hired poachers to help him. He has plead guilty to a poaching charge in the U.S. before and admitted to initially lying about it to authorities. I wonder if he learned his lesson and aimed to hunt legally going forward, and got misled by these African poachers, or if he is lying once again. Obviously the public is outraged over this incident and so am I. I am okay with hunting as long as the laws are followed, but they blatantly were not followed in the "Cecil the Lion" case. I just wonder where exactly the blame for that falls.

foodnerd said...

When I read the sentence, "I was seated between two beautiful women," the first image was a formally dressed man being shown to his seat, noticing as he sat that the person directly to each side was a beautiful woman. The wording just read more like a physical step from a "write down everything you did that work day" statement, rather than a description of his surroundings.

It's interesting how two people even sitting right next to each other can see,hear, smell, remember and describe completely different scenery and events, and even what they do agree is true they can interpret it so differently.

A news site ran a story about a woman's husband and longtime best friend getting caught cheating with each other. One commenter asked which would feel like the worst betrayal, the best friend or the husband? It seemed more men chose the husband as the worst betrayal and more women chose the best friend, with 400-plus responses at that time.

But what really stuck out from the context when people explained their reasoning, after only a week of SA addiction,is that regardless of gender the vast majority of those who picked the husband as the worst betrayer inferred that the two cheaters are now a couple, and nearly all of those who said the friend's betrayal hurt more inferred that it was an affair, but not one that meant anything.

Maybe after 10 years of SA I'll be able to figure out what that means and how to use it to get to the truth.