Thursday, July 9, 2015

Shifting Language in Statement Analysis

                                                   

Language has always changed.  The analyst must change with it, as these changes have been in shifts, and mostly in expressions.  What we now face may be unprecedented, however, leaving us to wonder if Statement Analysis, based upon scientific principle, will still be considered useful as it is today. 

As to shifts in language:

One need to only repair their breeches in England, or remind himself to be gay during the Great Depression or just...

Take a telegram.

"Coming to England.  Stop.   Meet me in one month.  Stop"

Why the word "stop" since they charge by the word?  I don't know.  

"Say, since when did you start rooting for the Mets?

"Broads, dames, tomatas" were your grandparents' language somewhere in "tar nation" (a country I have yet to find on the map) where black-legged lawyers, flat foots and tommy rot intermingled without want.


Language changes have come in shifts and it is only seen as "dramatic" in the passage of many years in time.  From Shakespearean English to modern English is a large leap, and the analysis must keep pace.

We did see a change in the past 20+ years with the internet, and analysis has shifted to discern truth from deception, as well as gleaned content in emails, texts, and abbreviated electronic messages.  Even type writers, with "all caps" took on new meaning for the analyst.

Where dropped pronouns are the base reference point, we shift with text messages, learning that if abbreviations are the norm, then typing out a full word equals emphasis, or sensitivity, calling us to attention.  This is a shifting that we do, seeking to put ourselves into the shoes of the culture.

The analyst cannot sit still as language changes, but these changes, even in the internet, were not breath-taking changes that overhauled conclusions.

This is "the expected" in analysis, where we attempt, via imagination and understanding, to consider what we expect someone to say, and later, to do, based upon his words, and the culture he lives in.  For example, "they went out to the garden  to talk", in ancient Israel, may have been no so much that the garden was where the scenery was best to relax the eyes, but where privacy in close quarters was afforded.  In Maine, "wicked hot" has nothing to do with evil.  This may seem overly simplistic, but you will see how, as the shifting goes to novelty, that truth, itself, is said to be fluid and transient.

This all may now change for us in a way that may be unprecedented in our history.  It is not so much a language "shift", but something that could undermine the principles of analysis.  

Objectivity Versus Subjectivity 

Each one of us has an internal code of language.  There are three exemptions to this unchanging principle.


The principle, itself, is what gives us our 'marching orders' to decode it.  At a training seminar, I ask what come to mind when I say the word, "boy", and have attendees jot down the response.

The answers range from a newborn child to a 21 year old male in the military.  This is a spread of more than two decades. Each of us has this, and the analyst 'decodes' it, that is, seeks the meaning of the subjective word, in discerning deception.

The three exemptions are:

1.  Time, as measured on a clock.  "1:25PM" is to be 25 minutes past the afternoon (literally, after noon) hour of 1 o'clock.  This is not subjective but "objective time on the clock" in analysis, which tells you that there must be something else in mind.  True enough, we also measure time in terms of "pace" of a statement; that is, how many words a person uses, per hour of time, in describing an event over 8 to 12 hours, minimum, of time.

2.  Articles.

The articles, "the" and "a" (and "an") identify an element of 'time' in the sense that, "a man" once introduced, if cited later in time, will be "the man."

Whether to use "a man" or "the man" is instinctive and does not cause one to slow down the pace of processing words to employ.  Therefore, when an article is "wrong", it is a signal of possible deception.

3.  Thirdly, saving the 'best for last' is Pronouns.  

Pronouns are intuitive, and take no pre thought.  If a pronoun is "wrong", you are looking at deception.  They give us 100% reliability in a child over the age of 5.

If one must pause to consider, "Was I alone, or were others present", you are looking at likely deception.  When the pronoun is "wrong", you are looking at deception.

When someone claims to be alone, but uses "we", it is a verbal indication that he was not alone, and this is 100% reliable.  Dennis Dechaine killed young Sarah Cherry.  He claimed to have gotten lost in the woods and was alone, not with his victim.  In his open statement to the question, "What were you doing?" he said he was admiring the deciduous trees but got up as "we were losing daylight."

Analysis of his other statements only affirmed the finding.  It is a rule of science to not conclude something on a single indicator, which must be followed, yet, if there were to be one exception to this rule of science, it would be pronouns.

But what happens when language shifts?

Answer:  We must shift.

Objection:  But what happens when language shifts with no reference point?

Answer:   We become a people of deception.

Once this takes firm root, and grows, it will impact courts and how testimony is heard.

I was attempting to understand the UCLA's professors' guide to racism.

If I moved to Italy, and worked hard at learning the Italian language, and a co-worker said to me, "You're Italian is excellent!" I would consider this a compliment and encouragement.

Yet from UCLA:   You meet and become friends with someone who has immigrated to the United States, where you live.  He studied English and is so proud of how he is doing.  You recognize his progress and say to your friend, "You speak English really well."

This might appear to be complimentary and encouraging to your friend, as you recognize his effort.  This was your intent in communication but you now learn that what you said to him was something quite different.

You threatened him.

 It no longer compliments the person for learning English in an English speaking country, but says "I have aggressive tendencies towards you.  You are a foreigner and will always be such, and you are "exotic" in your own race."

Remember:  language is the currency we trade in.

This redefining words in America has taken on an entire new pace, and is the "directives" of UCLA.

When we can't say that anything is objectively right or wrong, better or worse, the only yardstick we have left for behavior is feelings.  This is the subjectivity that will make language change, over time.  


The United States of "feelings."  


A few minutes on Facebook and you'll see how this new 'god', or 'final arbitrator' has emerged and how the worship or submission to it, has become so popular. What one 'feels', even if the objectivity behind the feeling is denied, is now its reality.  This is also labeled an "identity", which, as time goes by, may supplant the rights of "citizens."  Stay tuned as we attempt to analyze words.  


You've read of women saying "clapping" is aggressive and patriarchal, calling for "jazz hands", and likely chuckled.  I did, too, so don't be too hard on yourself.  Somewhere in the audience was a visually impaired person being discriminated because she cannot "hear" jazz hands.  


Yet, what happens when we can no longer define something for what it is?  What analysis can be done?


What if one simply lies but says this "feels" like it is truth?


The Bruce Jenner example stands before us.  Behind it, is both genetics and truth, as well as science, up for grabs in communication. 


A 65 year old grandfather has male organs but "feels", that is, perceives via emotion, that he is a woman, and has himself designed (dress, exogenous hormones, surgery, make up, etc) to look like a female college co-ed.  


Is he female?


Is he a co-ed?  (this speaks to age)


The media, almost completely, applauded him as having "courage."  Now, not only must we do violence to the scientific identification of "male", but also of "female", as well as age, and we must now ask for clarity on what constitutes "courage" in our English language.


Since you told your friend from Spain that his English was coming along really well, but now learned that these words were not complimentary, but were "micro-aggressive", you're ability to communicate (and my ability to analyze your communication) is in doubt. 


The truth is that Bruce Jenner is a man, which can be scientifically verified by checking the engine under the hood.  Not only is it deceptive to call him a female, but the deception, itself, is praised in, perhaps, the highest positive wording possible:  "courage."


Next, what of those who did not agree with Jenner's perception of himself, since he had male organs?


They were labeled "hateful" and "violators of civil rights."


Now, we need a new definition for "hate" than what has been commonly accepted.  This is a major shift, though not as severe as what has happened to the words, "male" and "female."


If "truth" is "hate", what is a "lie", but love?  "Love" , one of the most widely defined terms, used to mean, "seeking the highest good of its object", and "affectionately bonded", and so forth.  


When truth, itself, is dethroned, something naturally must take its place.  This is why subjectivity leads to human tyranny.  


Lying is not simply satisfied with itself, but must accuse its denying one.  


You have read this many times at this blog.

We use it to uncover truth knowing that people will not look upon their lie, and lie about it; therefore, it is a major strategy in interviewing and written questioning.  It is why, for example, liars who are exposed, go through an take a polygraph and fail.  It's a tried and proven technique.

It is the same with standards that it is with individuals, because, quite simply, a standard that is a lie, is simply a single lie, repeated and accepted by enough people to become the acceptable.

Follow this:

One person, one lie.  One challenger to the lie,  one demonized for daring to challenge.

Many liars, challengers refuse to accept the new standard, they are then demonized.  This is where the response to theft was heard:

Person A claims to be a victim of a hate crime and starts a Go Fund Me with tremendous results, except there was not hate crime, as the person did it, himself or herself.

The one who proves that the money seeker is actually scamming is labeled:  hate monger.

Remember, "hate" in this sense, is emotional. It means to have hatred or ill feelings.  It is not speaking of action, but motive.

The United States of Feelings means objective truth must be sacrificed to the higher 'god', or final arbitrator:  one's feelings, urges, or perceptions.

This then works itself out in language.

When the standard of objective truth is torn down, what remains is a lie.  Lies, like liars, attack those who simply point out, "this is not true."

Remember the case of "missing" 13 year old Hailey Dunn?  Investigators thought they had a run-away on their hands, while we listened to the mother on The Nancy Grace Show reveal that her daughter was dead, mom needed an alibi, and drugs were part of the equation.  

When the mother, Billie Jean Dunn was accused of lying, she was 'forced' by her own ego to take, and fail the polygraph. 

Where did this "lead her" in her "quest to find missing Hailey"?

answer;  to attack the police.  

She attacked the polygraph first, then the polygrapher, and then on to the police, themselves, including personal insults.  

None of this, however, had anything to do with finding her daughter.  It was just what liars do when caught:  they attack. 

When many people accept a lie, they, as a group, attack anyone who says, "that is not true."

So those who said, "Bruce is a boy" were thus declared "right wing bigots" who probably had guns and would strap themselves with bombs, run into a mall, and yell, What would Jesus do?", while attempting to kill handicapped minorities.  

Yes, I do read the main stream media on occasion.  

Liars always vilify, and it is generally done in "feelings" rather than debate.  This is an individual trait that translates to mob mentality.  (sorry, "sheep" mentality.  I wish to offend no one). 

Without objective truth at the center of his or her world view, the politician who "lies" will say or do anything, moral or immoral, to accomplish an agenda sought for.  Instead of the core value being truth, it is results based upon feelings, not logic.  

An emotion-driven agenda supplants reason, and even the rule of law.


When truth is the center of your world view, you struggle with right and wrong, knowing that truth is immutable.  

Nature hates a vacuum and will quickly seek something to replace it.  When truth is sacrificed, something else will take its place, and that is, currently, emotion.  It is now what "feels" right instead of what "is" right.  What "feels right" at the moment, may not "feel right" later, which gives way to the fluid, unchanging but drowning lies.  

It is like the liar who piles on a lie to defend a lie, until he has lost track.   


What must be then expelled from the dictionary?

"Hypocrisy."


This can no longer exist.  The fluidness of subjective truth is that "well, I voted against it last year, but this year, I learned differently" and the change, itself, can be incessant. 


So, should we have tougher laws on crimes, or softer laws on crimes?  

To even attempt to get a straight answer to this question is enough to drive someone to madness.  

In other words, there is no concrete of which to say, "you are a hypocrite.  You promised this but delivered that."


This person cannot be held accountable for two reasons:


1.  The words themselves no longer mean what they did or

2.  The feelings changed about the topic. 

The French Revolution saw this madness.  Robespierre decried capital punishment as a citizen, but then greased the guillotine with the blood of those who were not as tolerant in life as he was.  


His "god" was his feelings.  Instead of "capital punishment for capital crimes", he saw it imposed based upon the king's feelings.  When the king was overthrown, his feelings about it changed and "felt" its need for not just murderers, but for lots of other reasons. 


History teaches us that standards known as truth, limits tyranny.  When truth is relativistic, it is now the servant of man, rather than man serving truth.  When truth is subverted, historically, death and injustice follows. I cannot think of a single tyrant who promised social securities and well being to the people, who did not cause, at the least, hundreds of thousands of deaths.  

This brings us to a truth about the modern governing elite and the lies, defined as "perspectives" that are used:  


Our Question:  "So, how are we going to pay for all of this?"


Their Answer:  "Don't you care about children?"


Then you and I shake our heads and say, "how can they not care about the children?" embracing the "feeling" over the cold, ugly, nasty, hateful science of "You can't spend $5, if you only have $4."


It takes time to consider the $5, and the $4, and the cost of this and that. 

It is so much easier to say, "If it don't fit, you must acquit!"

Questions:  Why are feelings deified?

Think before answering this.  


Why do liars lie?  What is front and center to a liar?  This is the same as why they deify their own feelings while asserting that truth does not exist.  


It is because of religion. 


Religion is inescapable.  We all have our belief system and we can learn much by asking ourselves questions such as:


In a moral dilemma, who, or what, is my final arbitrator?  Where do I get my judgment from?  Why do I think the way I do?  From whom did I inherit my thinking, and where did they get it from?


The answers are humbling.  


They also take any specific race or nationality of any people that claim superiority, out back to the woodshed for a beating.  


Rachel Donezal did not get a "pass" on her subjective reality of being black.  Others who have claimed Native American heritage to earn money have.  So Bruce Jenner, a father and grandfather, says he is a hot young college girl, and he, or she, is courageous and not lying, nor mentally ill, but Racheal Donezal is not a hero?

This is the inconsistency of emotionalism, or rule by feelings, perceptions, or urges, which is for a different discussion.  

What about "trans-abled" people?

These are those who believe that they are, deep inside them, a disabled person, even though their body appears (to the eye, and to the same scientific scrutiny that found Bruce Jenner's penis), to be whole. 

In some cases, doctors ("do no harm") have amputated healthy body parts to "fulfill" the "trans-abled" person to disability (and that money check), without losing their medial license.  

Is it no longer a lie to say, "I need a wheelchair (and a disability check)" when I have two strong working legs?

What is going to happen in court to insurance investigators who "prove" in video that the person who has received tens of thousands of dollars for a bad back is out on a jet ski when the scammer says, "I am trans-abled."?

I recognize human nature can be hard for us to be consistent. Principle can face off against our own  desires, and this is when it is convenient to become quickly subjective and "situational" for us.  It is a powerful draw for us, especially when there is money on the line.   But there are things that can influence a person's likelihood to stand on principle. One is having a world view stating that consistency actually is better than inconsistency.  Another is that "thou shalt not steal" was drummed into his head at an early age. 

Think of how easy it appeared for Cindy Anthony to lie under oath. 

We could predict which time she was going to lie by her answers to the oath where sometimes she said, "so help me" and sometimes she said, "so help me, God."

Which one do you think she more boldly lied after uttering?  (put your answer in the comments section) 

Lying, to her, even under oath, was okay at that time because she was saving her daughter's life.  

Now, let's say that Cindy Anthony's own life is on the line and she either lives the rest of it in comfort, paid for by the blood of Caylee, or, if a person lies under oath about her, she is going to spend it behind bars.

What do you think Cindy is going to root for when the witness places his hand on the Bible?

"So help me" or "so help me, God"?

Will she say that truth is absolute, or will she affirm her earlier belief that it was bendable, according to how one 'feels' about it?

Would it be okay at this time to lie under oath, knowing it will mean injustice for Cindy? One can almost hear her telling the witness that the very Bible he is about to place his hand upon says not to lie.  

His answer, of course, is in the form of a question:   "do as you say, but not as you did?"

Which is how he feels, but Cindy feels differently and since there is no such thing as right from wrong, who is to say what truth is?

Tell that to the kid jumping off the roof who doesn't "embrace gravity" as science.  

Cindy is not happy.  It was okay for her to lie because she had, back then at least, very strong feelings about Casey.  Her feelings trumped truth, even with a hand on a book she said was God's own.  

Does she now believe that lying under oath is wrong and he better not?

Words are the currency we trade it.  Counterfeit currency destroys.  It destroys personal lives and it can destroy entire nations.  

When our own government's tyrannical oppression is propagated by a media which knows that in order to have access to the most powerful of the elite, they must "tow the line" in both reports and editorials, to the point of lying in order to consolidate the elite's power base by further manipulating us, do you really think MSNBC is going to report truthfully and incur the rage of the elite, losing its place at the dinner table?

But what happens when a person doesn't believe in truth? What then will be his yardstick for behavior? This is yet another reason why I asked you to consider your viewpoint on the human nature question.  

Well, if what we call right and wrong isn't determined by anything above man, then man himself is its author.  Okay, this works well for "non religious" people, so it is man who determines right from wrong.  

Think:  "the determination of the will" at this point.  What factors determine a person's will? 

If man determines it, it comes from his intellect, right?  Man uses his intellect, which is above that of others in creations, including cats, right?  Dogs, maybe, but definitely smarter than cats.  

Consider that the intellect's job is to use reason, a quality that the relativistic elite ostensibly values. 

What is reason, however? 

It's not an answer, but a method by which answers may be found.  It is the means, but not the end.  This is where we follow words in analysis, and why I complement those who say,

"I think he is deceptive because..." and spell out their reasoning.  If wrong, they can be corrected, which is the point of "scientific" analysis, known here as "Statement Analysis."

It bows to science.  

But there can be no answers to moral questions if there's no Truth; hence, there then is no reason for reason.

This is why following relativism out leads us to a striking conclusion: Since we can't say that anything is objectively right or wrong, better or worse, the only yardstick we have left for behavior is feelings. Truth is a tale, faith is fancy, but emotion is certainly real. We can feel it - deeply. And, oh, how seductive is that siren of anger, envy or any passion? Just think how readily emotion inspires action.  We have violence in our city streets but the debate is about  flag.  

This is to announce the death of Statement Analysis since one might not "feel" like pronouns are intuitive?  I think I can name a few people who "feel" that Statement Analysis isn't "truthful" in its application or conclusion.  Did how the guilty "feel" about the analysis change the analysis?

Could feelings change analysis?

Since this process is scientific, evenly applied with expected results, what happens when emotion trumps science?

If I really really feel that Dex is a girl dog, will he be?  Am I lying, or is this my reality?  Do I need psychiatric help?  If so, can enough of us who want their male dogs to be, well, you know the word, female dogs, bind together, rally, protest, boycott, indulge in a bit of violence, and threaten even more violence, get the DSM changed so that my view that Dex and his male organ is really a female is a "perception" of "truth"?

Science says Rachel is white, and Bruce is a boy and Dex, is too.  Thus, if Rachel says she is black, she is lying, just as if Bruce says he is a girl, he is lying.  Dex's owner remains perplexed.  

But when we say, "he is not lying; she is a courageous hero", we have not only lied, but we have called "good" to be "bad", and "up" to be "down", and how we feel about something to be the supreme arbitrator of human life. Next, when those who disagree with the finding on Bruce, they are declared "hateful", which, methinks, is probably "bad", or "negative" or "not good" in some form of human speech.  

Whether you have been lied to by someone refinancing your home (Countrywide Scandal), or someone falsely testifies in court against you, or a loved one deceives you, or you are unjustly and falsely terminated for your religious belief, it is that deception does damage to you, your health, your home, your job, your business and...

your nation.  

We have become  a nation more steeped in deception than at any time in our history because of how acceptable deception has become.  Right from wrong denigrated, racial discrimination fought with more racial discrimination, theft with institutionalized theft, but the final blow has been to freely re-define truth according to emotion.  

It has infected our schools and every aspect of our society.  It is not new, in the sense that elevating the individual's sense of self, first above others, and then above morals, and now above science, has been a trend that has gained powerful traction in our day.  

Deception is deception, even if it is called something else.  


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Slightly OT: Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it: Why the "F" word in nearly every conversation these days? Can hardly watch anything on TV or listen to someone speaking without the F bomb in nearly every other word or sentence. F this and F that, F yourself, F-off. You name it. Thoroughly disgusting. I was taught that using slang language or curse words in a conversation was illiterate, that it's what people do when their vocabulary isn't broad enough to think of something more intelligent to say.

Speaking of the word broad, I'm probably the only woman on the planet who didn't care for Frank Sinatra because he referred to women as "broads". I considered this to be demeaning to women and for this reason found him to be repulsive. If it wasn't broads he was calling them, it was dames, another demeaning word for women in my opinion. Now whole groups of women are referred to as HOs by many men.

But then, I'm sensitive to the use of bad language and name calling in general, other than when being pushed to extreme anger than I can let lose like a drunken sailor when that's not my verbiage of choice either.

Accept that I do find uses of these words funny on Tyler Perry shows since they are used with such hilarity, especially when Tyler Perry plays as Ms. Madea. I mean really! What a scream. That right there is some funny shyt!! What an actor!

Anonymous said...

For all those wondering why "STOP" was inserted in the old fashioned telegrams at the end of sentences, punctuation used to cost extra whereas letters were free (up to a certain character limit). So users would craft their telegrams to fully make use of this limitation.

Buckley said...

I think Bruce is a man, albeit an attention whore (the ca$hing in of it bugs me more than the gender confusion), White Rachel a should go to jail for fraud, and saying "shyt" makes one both profane and a bad speller. ;)

I think I can name a few people who "feel" that Statement Analysis isn't "truthful" in its application or conclusion.

They sound like idiots. You should tell them SA is a set of principles and it is the analyst who does the applying and concluding, which in practice gives a range of "truthfulness" or accuracy. I see what you mean about pronouns though; I'd expect these "people" to "feel":

" that an analyst isn't "truthful" in his (or her) application of SA principle or his or her conclusions.

Buckley said...

I've been teaching my son a little SA. Well, that and called him out on lies because if it.

Anyway at camp today he was playing "Two truths and a lie" where 3 people tell stories and someone else is to tell which is the lie. He was wavering between one who ate 15 tacos and one who cut off a finger when he was young.

Remembering something I'd told him, he asked the finger cutter how old he was when it happened.

"Three"

He knew which to choose.