Saturday, September 12, 2015

Statement Analysis Test: Rear View Mirror

Very late in the game...


                                              How good are you at catching liars?

Liars, statistically, destroy.  When one lies about small issues, they will lie about greater issues.  Are you able to catch them when they fabricate insignificant or needless issues?

When the liar gets beyond you on the small lies, it is often too late when the big lie is sprung upon you:  the damage is acute to you, your life, your business, your reputation, your bottom line...your freedom.

Here is a test for you to take to see how good you are at catching the liars.

 Put down your responses in the comments section, choosing a name.
Then, check your work against some of what is known about the statements.

Third, go back and enter a follow up comment seeking to answer the question:

Did the subject give you an indication into personality type?

This should be made as your follow up comment.  
I.  7 Claims Made, with statements.  Are these truthful or deceptive?  Reliable, or Unreliable?  
Please give some detail, even if you feel the statement, alone, is not enough for you to draw an opinion.  
II.  The Eternal Information, or "rear view window" hindsight and/or some analysis insight. 
******************************************************************************
I.  Claims and Statements for Analysis 
Here are a series of statements for analysis.  The subject's statement and external ("rear view mirror") information follows below that you must scroll down to reach.  Analyze first, and then check your work with the external information by scrolling down and compare it with your analysis. Each subject's statement is in italics and represents a quiz for you to test your abilities.  What will become obvious, for at least one subject's statement, is the connection to politics which, due to its import of persuasion, is always in position for deception.  
Politicians will sometimes lie even when using a tragedy, to capitalize by awareness of employing higher levels of emotion in the recipient of the lie.  This is a signal that the subject may lack self-restraint as to how far he or she is willing to go.  Does it reveal a personality type?  
1.  Claim:  The subject was in a helicopter, forced down while being shot at. The subject made 2 statements about it
a.  “If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.”
b.  “Where is that safe haven? It is not Baghdad. It is in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan where my helicopter was recently forced down.  The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down. John McCain wants to know where bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That's where Al Qaida is. That's where bin Laden is.
2.  Claim:  The subject heard the gun fire from a school shooting while playing golf. 
“I happened to be literally, probably, it turned out, to be a quarter of a mile at an outing when I heard gunshots in the woods. We didn’t know, we thought they were hunters.

3.  Claim:   This subject, as a father, addressing a claim initially made about being present for his son's death in which he had to admit he was not present. Do his words give you insight into anything?
"“I’d be lying if I said that I knew I was there. I’m being completely honest. Nobody has a right in my view to seek that office unless they are willing to give it 110 percent of who they are."
4.   Claim:   The subject claimed to have 3 college degrees.  

“I think I have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect.  I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship. In the first year in the law, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class and then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school, and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot-court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political-science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits — only needed 123 credits. And I would be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours.
5.  Claim:  Plagiarism 
The same subject defended himself on the charge of plagiarism:  
''My intent was not to deceive anyone. For if it were, I would not have been so blatant. If I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?'' 
''I value my word above all else.  This is a fact which is known to all those who are or have been acquainted with my character.'
Years later, he said he had misunderstood the rules of citation and footnoting: 
''I was wrong, but I was not malevolent in any way. I did not intentionally move to mislead anybody. And I didn't. To this day I didn't.'' 
Is this a reliable denial?  (explain your answer) 

6.  Claim:  This subject claimed to have played college football at a commencement speech at a college: 

"I played football at Delaware. I’m not supposed to become an aficionado of the Gamecocks.

Later, in writing memoirs, he wrote about his football career.  

What does your analysis show regarding these written statements?

a.  "When my first semester grades came out, my mom and dad told me I wouldn’t be playing football.”

b.  “I surprised my coaches by moving up the depth chart fast and, after the annual spring game that April, it looked like I had a shot to start at defensive back.”
 c.  “I couldn’t wait for next September and could almost see the fall season unfold in my head” until he headed to Florida for spring break “after our last practice.” 
During spring break, the subject met **** ***** , who would later become his first wife, and “fell ass over tin cup in love — at first sight.”
On pages 32-33, the subject wrote that he was so in love with Hunter he had to decide “about football.”  
d.  "I realized that if I played football, my weekends were taken and I wouldn't see much of *****  in September, October, November … into December if we made the playoffs”:
I called the coach a few weeks before preseason started. “Coach, I’m not coming.” 
“Who is this?”
“It’s **** *******, Coach. I’m not going to play this season.”
“****!   (using the subject's last name)   You realize you’ve got a shot to play this year?”
“I know, Coach, but I’m not coming. I’m not playing…. See, I met this girl, and she’s at ******–“

These individual statements can be either under one analysis, or several, but give at least some commentary on them.  

7.  Claim:  The subject made repeated claims that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver, while campaigning for tougher laws against drunk drivers.  This statement should provide the analyst with much yield:  

"Let me tell you a little story. I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries."
Later:  
"It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit a tractor-trailer, hit my children and my wife and killed them,"







SCROLL DOWN AFTER ANALYSIS COMPLETION FOR EXTERNAL INFORMATION






























































External Information and/or analysis points.  

This is the "rear view mirror" of looking back in hindsight along with some checks of your own analysis inclusions. 

                                        How did your analysis stack up?


1.  Helicopter Claim:  The helicopter landed due to a snow storm. There was no gun fire.

2.  Golf Course School Shooting 2006.  The nearest golf course was 5 miles away and they denied the subject was there.  The second closest was 10 miles away and they said 'we neither confirm nor deny' the subject's presence.  The shooting was indoors.

3.  Death of Son:  The subject had to admit that he was not there for his son's death.  Note the percentages used:  were these two numbers in your conclusion?

What do you think of a man using his own son's death as "impetus" for being ready for political office?  What does this say about personality?

4.  College Degrees:   The subject has one college degree, not "three."

5.  Plagiarism:  The school found that he was deliberate and that the 5 complete pages were claimed to be his own but were copied, word by word, with precision.

  Did you analysis include his own "embedded" words?
What did you make of his use of a question within his defense?

This became a controversy for the school in not expelling him, nor taking greater disciplinary action against him, such as failure in the course.  That it is in law school, itself, is of interest.  He graduated 76th in his class...of 85.

Did you analysis include such things as "tangent" and "offensive" ("attack" etc)?

Did you gain insight into the subject's personality in the two college claim statements?

6.  College football.

There are no records to show he was on any roster of any team.



7.  Drunk Driving claim:  


External information:  It was an accident in which the truck driver was exonerated, by State police; not charged. They said there was no evidence that he was speeding, drinking or driving a truck with faulty brakes. Alcohol was not part of the case. 

The driver had died shortly before these campaign statements were made. 

His daughter said, "To see it coming from his mouth, I just burst into tears. My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself."

MSM did not challenge the claim, even after the family protested, which left the subject free to repeat the claim in another campaign speech. 

******************************************************************************




Conclusions: 

Did you include details in your analysis about the specific forms of deception employed?
Did you make any commentary about how he may have sought to profit from deception?

What insight did he give into his personality type?  

In a subsequent comment, using the same name, could you follow up, now, with an answer to this question?


What insight did he give into his personality type?   

I am curious as to what readers think, especially his statement about his IQ.



Did you note that he makes not only complete fabrication of reality, but that he also has many 100% technical truthful statements?

16 comments:

Jamie said...

1. Claim: The subject was in a helicopter, forced down while being shot at. The subject made 2 statements about it:
a. “If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.”
b. “Where is that safe haven? It is not Baghdad. It is in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan where my helicopter was recently forced down. The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down. John McCain wants to know where bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That's where Al Qaida is. That's where bin Laden is.”


Where are you getting "shot at" from those statements?

Jessica Blans said...

1. Not sure if this is a statement in response to specific questions, or a statement given to the press. It could impact the analysis.
1A. The subject is using an implied question in this statement ("Do you want to know..."). It might make sense if the subject has been interviewed a number of times and asked the same stupid/shallow question over and over. If so, the question could be in response to an external situation rather than sensitivity to the topic. Otherwise, beginning with an implied question is sensitive as it makes it seem like the subject is providing info, but really isn't. It's a red herring. Also, it heightens emotional response in receivers because it prompts us to The specificity of the 3-star General and 3 senators (the liar's number...) and the altitude are inappropriate detail when subject is not giving detail about the actual topic -- being shot down.
1B. There are two questions in this statement, More than the above statement. I would note it as sensitive, and upgrade it to a heightened sensitivity since the subject chooses to use a distracting question again in this statement, and does so twice. The subject repeats "where my helicopter was forced down" in 2 adjacent sentences. The unnecessary repetition shows that this idea is important to the subject, and the analysis needs to determine why. There are many emotionally-laden word choices that have little informative value (super highway of terror, gates of hell -- although these may be terms commonly used for the area???? If so, not sensitive, but also not informative when making a statement). The subject specifies John McCain without a clear reason for doing so. The subject asks a question and then answers the question in a non-informative manner (McCain wants to know where; I can tell him where; there (undefined location). There is where Al Quaida is. There is where bin Laden is).

Most of these two statements alert to sensitivity. It is necessary to find out why. Is it sensitivity due to the external circumstances such as the interview process? Or is it sensitivity due to internal constraints such as deception.

Jessica Blans

Jamie said...

3. Claim: This subject, as a father, addressing a claim initially made about being present for his son's death in which he had to admit he was not present. Do his words give you insight into anything?

"“I’d be lying if I said that I knew I was there. I’m being completely honest. Nobody has a right in my view to seek that office unless they are willing to give it 110 percent of who they are."


I saw the entire Colbert interview. This statement has nothing to do with "the subject" being present for his son's death (or not).

Anonymous said...

1) Gates of Hell...William Bryant Jennings? This guy's stumpin'
2)Literally, probably, it turned out to be....Stanley manf of tape measures with extraordinary hearing. A salesman.
3)I'd be lying if I knew I was there. (This man can't be expected to know where he is at any given time.
4)I think I have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect...blah, blah, blah. Rhetoric with an opening for a pissing match.
5)Blah, blah, blah...I value my word above all else. (obviously)
6)Some girl screwed up my thinkin'
7)Initially he recalled dates and the time of his family deaths. Later it was shortened as he distanced himself from the horrific events. He "claimed" drunk driver as a cause to get elected. The reality may have been his wife turned in front of a heavy turk that needed extra time to stop.

Yukari said...

7) He starts out with "Let me tell you a little story", indicating that what follows is fabricated. The repetition of "Christmas" is used for emotional impact. There are contradictions in what he tells us about the actual events - first, it is "a tractor-trailer, a guy who ... drank his lunch...," that "broadsided his family", then it is "an errant driver who stopped to drink INSTEAD OF drive and HIT a tractor-trailer".(How can the errant driver hit the tractor-trailer when he has stopped?). Also note "a guy who ALLEGEDLY -- and I never pursued it -- drank" - so he is admitting he does not know.
6) In the quotes from his autobiography, he never states that he actually played football. He always used the conjunctive (if I played football) or speaks about having "a shot at playing". He was a reserve player, at best.
3) “I’d be lying if I said that I knew I was there." What is he telling us? He is hesitant to claim he was there ("if I said" vs. outright saying it), because it would be a lie. "I’m being completely honest" > red flag. "to give it 110 percent" > another red flag, you can´t give more than 100%.
2) “literally, probably," > red flag.
4) This statement screams of narcissism with underlying insecurity.
““I think I have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect."> Very programmatic. He is trying to assert his superiority, but is not committing to this statement.
"full academic scholarship" > repetition shows sensitivity.
"bottom two-thirds" vs. "top half of my class." > Two thirds is a larger group, so he is trying to suggest he was less bad, and then better, than he may have been.
"And I would be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours" > this statement is rather sad, really. If he was as brilliant as he claims he is, or at least convinced that he was, he would not need to compare his IQ to anyone.
5) Embedded statement: "My intent was not to deceive anyone. ... I had intended to cheat" (plus,since he was caught: "I have been so stupid").
"I value my word above all else. This is a fact which is known to all those who are or have been acquainted with my character." This is also of no consequence at all to anyone besides him, and has nothing to do with the subject matter.
"I did not intentionally move to mislead anybody. And I didn't. To this day I didn't." Repetition, but incomplete statement. "And I didn´t" do what? > red flag.

S + K Mum said...

OT

Actor who played Crimewatch 'killer' becomes suspect 21 years later.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-11/actor-who-played-crimewatch-killer-21-years-ago-becomes-suspect-in-same-case/

What are peoples thoughts on this? Unfortunate or clever cover?!


Peter Hyatt said...

Some impressive comments. I will address specifics later.

As you can see, it takes effort not all are willing to make.

Sus said...

I wrote this out last night, then hesitated to post when I realized all but one claim come from Joe Biden. I felt that spoke of a political agenda from you. I have reconsidered this morning, and see that several quotes allow us to "profile" him. And that he and Peter Jennings personality have some common characteristics. So here goes.

Claim 1: Uses hyperbole "Superhighway of terror", "gates of Hell", "at 10,500 feet"; Counts on his audience to infer without him saying.

Claim 2: There's several things here that show no reliability, but follow the pronouns... I to WE.

Claim 3: "I'd be lying if I said that I knew I was there." What does that even mean? When someone says "completely honest" they are not always honest. There is no such thing as 110%.

Claim 4: If he has three degrees, math isn't one of them.

Claim 5: First sentence is in the negative. Who is "anyone"? Uses a question to answer. "I value my word above all else." This is probably true.

No, it is not a reliable denial. Adding "And I didn't. To this day I didn't." makes it nonreliable.

Claim 6: The claimant said, "I played football in Delaware." The coach said, "You realize you've got a shot to play this year." Telling us he hadn't played.

Claim 7: "Let me tell you a little story." Says it all. He counts on his audience to allow him (let me). The little story defined his political career.

Jane said...

1b. He has repeated "my helicopter," as if he's a pilot or commander of some sort, but I am fairly certain he was just a passenger, and his account is dramatic but vague and probably exaggerated in importance. He may have been very scared during whatever happened and then want to play it up so that its importance makes his reaction appropriate.

2. Didn't know how far away and had to check to make sure he really was within hearing range before making his statement. Wants to be part of the action, have the status of witness. "I heard"/"We thought" is odd. Personality traits: Kind of passive, wanting to be one of the grown-ups or important people, wanting to please the interviewer.

3. He relates wanting public office to lying about being there when his son died, which is odd. Giving 110% means making extra efforts not to lie, which is hard for him, apparently.

4. The wording is laughably faux-intellectual, like a young child pretending. The chronology makes no sense. The subject refers to being "in the law" when he (I think he's male) is referring to being a 1st year law student. He does not have enough insight into himself to realize how childish and his bragging sounds.

Rearview mirror: I'm surprised he even has one degree. I guess he was expected by his family (or constituents?) to be more scholastic than he was.

5. Not a reliable denial. "To this day I didn't" shows that he believes that his original intent is something that's changeable through the years. His intent was to cheat to get ahead.

6d. The "Who is this?" is probably accurate in that the coach would have no idea who he was since he was not a player. The conversation did not take place except in his imagination.

7. I'm confused. When a statement confuses me to this extent, I've learned that there is something in it that doesn't add up -- lies. "A little story" is a disgusting, extremely off-putting way to introduce the "story" of how your wife and daughter were killed. "A tractor-trailer, a guy" -- a guy is not a subset of tractor-trailer. He is overeager to mention the tractor-trailer for dramatic effect. This is a story told in little phrases that are all jumbled up, as if by a person who is himself drunk. He is feeling mixed emotions about this -- mainly, grief plus the opportunity to score some points in the political arena. Someone who wants to be pitied for points but also despises that?

Rearview mirror: Ah, the driver wasn't drunk or guilty of wrongdoing. This story makes even less sense now.

Jessica Blans said...

“I happened to be literally, probably, it turned out, to be a quarter of a mile at an outing when I heard gunshots in the woods. We didn’t know, we thought they were hunters."

The statement/story begins with information not yet known when the situation occurred. The subject doesn't know how far s/he is from an event that hasn't happened yet.

There is an interesting mix of detail and vagueness. The statement starts off with what appears to be a detail ("literally... it turned out, to be a quarter of a mile"), but it is modified by "probably" before the thought is even finished. That makes the specificity sensitive. Is a quarter of a mile an important? Why? If not, why is it the first thing mentioned?

"at an outing" is unexpected wording because "outing" is vague and is not a typical word choice. That makes this sensitive. Why not say exactly what s/he did? Such as "I was hiking," or "I was at a picnic," or "I was _______." It's sensitive, but I do not know if it is sensitive because of the shooting, or if it is sensitive because the subject doesn't want his/her actions to be known. Such as s/he was in the woods because of harvesting illegal pot or poaching on someone's land.

There is sensitivity because of a pronoun change. "I heard gunshots" becomes "we didn't know." Why the pronoun change? Did the other(s) hear the gunshots? If not, why not? Was there discussion about the gunshots at the time of the gunshots?

Incomplete thought in second sentence,"We didn't know," didn't know what? Why is the direct object omitted from the sentence?

There are no emotional word choices in the statement. Is this because the subject has no emotions about the shooting or because the subject is avoiding expressing emotion?

Jessica

Sus said...

My mistake on the first one. It is also Joe Biden. I didn't know that one.

Sus said...

This is my follow up. It is difficult to do because I want to bring in other things I know about Joe Biden. He is the go-to guy for reaching across the aisle, for getting along with foreign dignitaries, settling between the justice Dept and the Senate. He is a chameleon. He is what his audience wants him to be. He is always in survivor mode, which may indicate a hard childhood where he didn't develop his own inner self. He becomes what others need him to be.

His statement about his IQ is interesting in that he married two highly intelligent women. Another example of his audience.

Peter Hyatt said...

Joe Biden was credited as one subject.

What of the others?

Sus said...

They are all claims from Joe Biden.

Cat's Meow said...

Claim 1. Subject has to name drop important people. It feels more like he is trying to persuade than describing something that actually happened. The only time he used “I” in the first statement was at the end. He also uses the verb “can” which is a tricky verb for me, because anyone “can” tell you anything. But it doesn’t mean that he knows where Bin Laden is located. It just means he can tell them a location that may or may not be true. Also he doesn’t reference Bin Laden or Al Queda in that sentence. Instead he uses the word “they.” Which could mean anyone. The second statement is the same thing roughly. A lack of “I” statements. Phrasing things passively. Asking questions in a challenging manner. It really seems like this person is lying about knowing where Al Queda and Bin Laden are.

Claim 2. Why is changing the noun from “I” to “We”? He is unsure if what he heard was actually gunshots. He is reluctant to state it outright by including the words “literally, probably.” Also the phrasing of “happened to be” and then also “it turned out” raises red flags for me. Also I don’t like the phrase “We didn’t know” because it isn’t a complete thought. Also why is he okay with saying that “I heard gunshots” and then quickly changing to “we.” I would say he feels bad about not doing anything after he heard the noise.

Claim 3. LIAR. Using the words “completely honest.” Needing to persuade that he is telling the truth. I also do not understand the scenario/context of this statement. I feel like he is speaking about himself in the third sentence in a distancing way. Almost like the rules he is stating do not apply to him but everyone else if I am understanding the context clearly.

Cat's Meow said...

Claim 4. Well he starts off saying he is better than the other person, as if it matters, as if it means the other person should give him respect or authority right from the start of the paragraph. Red flags for me. Also knows he doesn’t have a higher IQ, because he uses “I think” and “I suspect.” Less commitment. Drops “I” pronoun when saying “the only one in my class” - probably lying about that. I don’t like that he says “first year in the law” being in the “law” doesn’t mean anything. Being in “law school” means something. Why did he go from calling it “law school” to “law” to “law school”? Why is he so specific about which departments he was in but not specific about the degrees he received? Why does he need to be so specific about the credits he earned? Feels like he is trying to persuade. He spends the majority of the lines in the statement describing scholarships, awards, etc. But so little time on the degrees he got. I don’t think he has 3 degrees.

Claim 5. “For if it were” sets off alarm bells in my head. He is definitely lying. The “if” statements. The embedded confession of “I had intended to cheat.” Stating “facts” again. He did that in the previous statement, saying “in fact.” Valuing your word is not that same as “I didn’t plagiarize.” This is not a reliable denial. He is putting so much emphasis on intentions, misleading, malevolent… oh my. I am writing as I am reading this. When he says “And I didn’t. To this day, I didn’t”. Red flags! Qualifying the “I didn’t” with “to this day.” Also the “I didn’t” is just hanging there. It isn’t attached to any action. I would believe him if he said “I didn’t plagiarize.” But he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t deny the charge reliably. Also his “but” in the beginning cancels out his statement that he thinks he was “wrong.” Which makes me think he didn’t think it was a bad thing to do. I think a question in my mind is if he didn’t intend to mislead, what did he intend to do? He is comparing it to something. Like he intended to cheat and he intended to not get caught.

Claim 6. Statement A. Fine I believe that. Statement B. I believe this. Statement C. I don’t believe this because he used the phrase “couldn’t wait.” It’s a negative way of saying something positive. And saying “could almost” makes me think he knew he was going to leave the team. Also it is a weird tense. Sounds like he is trying to persuade about his relationship. Why the need to explain falling in love twice in different ways? Statement D. So I think he needed to describe falling in love so much because he knew he was going to leave the team. INTERESTING that he refers to the coaches as “my coaches” in earlier statements, but then changes to “the coach” later. Distancing, no longer sees himself as part of the team.

Claim 7. HAHA. "Let me tell you a little story”!! You have got to be kidding me. LIAR.