Monday, February 29, 2016
Readership Participation: Deception and Romance Question
Linguistic Signals of Deception in Romance
With endless internet advice on lie detection and romance the focus is primarily on the "signs" that are obvious and mostly related to the internet age.
Does he change his password frequently?
Does he close the computer screen when you walk into the room?
Does he have a second profile on Facebook?
Then, this goes to:
Did he suddenly buy new expensive cologne?
Does he now shower more often?
Did he suddenly do a comb over, buy clothes too young for him and...?
Rather than look to the external signs, misinterpreting a sinus condition for something serious, language, itself, is the best indicator for getting to the truth.
Yet, before any of this can be discussed, we must do the one thing that our society struggles with:
What one sees in the mirror and discerns by human senses, may be one thing, while a statement may suggest another.
In the past 7 years, a new "definition" phenomena has arisen: "The identity." This new entity trumps "citizen."
This, new for us, is not new for the world, as the Nuremberg Laws in Germany created a new entity, the "national socialist" which also trumped "citizenship" as an entity.
Of course, the language must reflect this.
In the past 7 years, "character" has lost its historic definition and lost meanings has consequences.
"Where do you stand on Topic C?"
"I am firmly against Topic! You can count on me protecting you from Topic C if you elect me!"
When the political winds shift and Topic C is no longer "bad" but has gone to "good", the same politician says,
"I am firmly for Topic C!"
"But, that is not where you stood just a few years ago when you campaigned against Topic C!"
"Yes, but my position has evolved."
This was once a man without character, but now it is seen as a man with character.
So before we get to the specific linguistic indicators of deception we must have a starting point.
This is a fascinating exercise.
If interested in participating, please answer one question for the exercise:
"What is cheating?"
Here is how to answer it:
Begin with the relationship:
c. Verbally Committed
Next, from a, b or c, (reference standard) tell us specifically what is cheating. What is "acceptable" and what is "definitely cheating!"
This can include physical descriptions, "he is not cheating if he shakes hands with a woman" or "flirting is fine, as long as..."
You are specifically describing your expectation in the relationship. Bill Clinton had his own definition of infidelity (he even had his own definition of lying) and the word "is."
His own nationally televised deception showed habitual, life long deception, and just how good he was, and how he thinks in life. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" may have even caused him to pass a polygraph if "sexual relations" was not defined using Clinton's own language.
Defining what "cheating" is allows for the context or setting to be applied. Without the definition, there will be an inconsistency in "the expected" for you, and will vary widely for us all.
Perhaps we may even come to a single definition?
you must add in if this definition is agreed upon by both parties. If your spouse or partner disagrees, make this clear, too.
What is fascinating about this is not simply the language of deception, but in our definitions we reveal ourselves, and our expectations.
It helps research and data base building.
If you are in a generous mood and wish to help our research, would you consider answering a second question?
Bonus Question: "What is love?"
Every word you use in your answers is important to analysis.