Wednesday, April 6, 2016

UK Testing of Statement Analysis Revisited



                      Increased listening produces results.  

Canadian musician Neil Young has made headlines over the past few years decrying the music industry's severe compression of music, making it easier to store on phones, but at a cost of quality.  

What do the science tests say to Mr. Young?

In double blind tests, most people cannot hear the difference between a lossless file and a 196 mp3 file...the exception?  Musical engineers and audiophiles who make it a point to learn the difference.  On the average, however, the general public cannot discern the difference, in spite of Neil Young's assertion to the contrary. 

Is this settled science? 

Let's consider it and its relationship to Statement Analysis training which claims not only extreme results, but a natural move from analyzing statements to analyzing speech.  

Music is audio; that is, sound waves for discernment by the brain, through the mechanisms of the ear.  To record it in "digital" is to make millions and millions of tiny 'bits' of information, for just one song.  This digital file is huge, (called "lossless") so it is compressed into something much smaller  (called "lossy" with much data lost) and much more easily stored:  Mp3 format.  The size of "CD Quality" is 196.  To hear it, the digital bits must be converted to audible sound.  Every phone and lap top has this converter built in.  It is most cost efficient and they do not use expensive ones; after all, the public cannot hear the difference.  

Testers have then taken expensive DACs (digital to audio converters) and done the same tests and have found out:

The average person still cannot tell the difference between a severely compressed file (196 Mp3) and a lossless file.  Thus, the purchasing of more expensive lossless files is a waste, as is the purchasing of more expensive DACs, to supplant the one in your computer or phone a waste, and it is 'snake oil salesmen' who are profiting off the foolish public.  

Scientific testing, using the A/B blind method has been conclusive, therefore, Apple and others'  use of low cost DACs within their products is a wise cost saving move. People cannot tell the difference anyway.  

Has the science been settled?

Many years ago, testers in the UK had investigators trained in Statement Analysis  and then tested them.  They outscored the untrained and were about 20% points higher than average.  This, they concluded, may not be enough to invest the millions of pounds (or is it still Euros?) into training (though some argued that going from 50% to 73% was quite a jump worthy of investment).  The training was 2.5 days in length, which works out to under 20 hours.  

I reviewed their report and the samples they used in the testing.  

Science settled?

Not so fast.  

Let's take a deeper look.  

First, let's begin with how we hear and how we read; for we do not hear with our ears and see with our eyes, so much as we do with the brain.  

"A" 'ah' apple"...'B 'ba' ball" and "C, kuh, Cat"

Let's begin with recorded music.  

We hear in analog.  

It is recorded in digital.  It must be translated back to analog (audio) for our ears to hear it.  

The digital information is converted (DAC) to audio for our ears to translate the sound waves so that our brain can tell us:

*what we hear
*the pitch of which we hear
*the distinction of what we hear 
*the proximity of what we hear
*the emotional response to what we hear, or, the "discernment" of what we hear ("this is good" and "this is not good") 

The brain learns early that a siren has sound waves that tells the brain, "emergency!"

The brain has a positive emotional response (hormonal) to harmony; that is, 2 or more sound waves that work together in a 'pleasing' manner. 

The brain has a distinct opinion of nails against a blackboard, or Yoko Ono singing.  

When the sound waves reach the ear, the brain can often tell if the sound is that of a young female child, or an elderly male speaking.  It can discern if the sound is hostile, or friendly, imperative, or suggestive.  The brain tells you that the sound is far away, or right up behind you.  

In digital, millions of bits of information is lost during the conversion.  Much of this is outside the human range of hearing, however, but lots within that range of hearing, too, is lost during compression and conversion.  

A converter is used to convert the millions of digital signals of music, including little bits of information regarding a single note; when the note begins and when it ends.  

Lossless has it all while MP3 has much less.  Larger MP3  (320) is closer to lossless but for this purpose, 196 mp3 versus lossless is used for the blind tests.  196 is called "cd quality."

If you take a high quality digital to analog converter to the source and give someone high quality headphones upon their first listening test  of which is which, lossless or lossy, they will still likely score the guess rate of 50%.  This is similar to the results of lie detection.  

Then, do it again. 

And again. 

And again. 

In fact, give the person the high quality DAC (converter) and headphones and let them listen to either lossless or large mp3 (320) with their favorite music, every day...

for a month.  Test them now. 

And...for another month.  Test them again. 

And another month of daily listening...

You will see significant increase in the scores.  

The high quality DAC is taking millions of bits of information more than normal and giving it to the brain to interpret.  At first, the brain did not recognize this overwhelming amount of information but in time the brain recognized the information until, as time goes by, the listener who could score no higher than 50% guess rate is at or near 100% and may now even be able to tell the difference between even closer rivals; lossless and 250 MP3...

and so on. 

Sometimes the person who has purchased the headphones or DAC says, "it needed time to burn in" and it is "much better now that it has 300 hours on it", or something similar.  The testing of the equipment at 300 hours is the same at 1 hour:  the electrical wiring is moving signals just as it was the day before.  The difference is not in the speaker, but in the brain's ability to interpret the complexity of sound.  

The DACs within phones and computers are generally of much lower quality with the money invested elsewhere.  When one purchases a quality DAC to bypass their computer or phone's DAC, and quality headphones, the music appreciate increases immediately, but over the course of days, weeks and months, the increase is significant enough that they will not want to return to severely compressed music files again.  Neil Young was right.  

The Scientific A/B blind testing was correct; but it was not complete.  

Listener Fatigue = Dulled Listening

Two years of intense training and someone has the right to call themselves an analyst.  Given course semesters and breaks, this is about the equivalent of a 6 year degree. 

True enough, they begin to work in analysis within 24 hours of initial training and often find success due to guided work, but by the time they have completed all work, written a thesis, and have a minimum of 24 months of peer fueled guided training:  they are proficient in their craft of lie detection.  

During this time they have gone from 50% guess work to near 100% accuracy in written statements, but as the brain became accustomed to signals of sensitivity, the transition from statement analysis to discourse (live, conversational) analysis is realized, quite naturally, without any overt training to the such.  

Dulled Listening is a survival mechanism in the brain uses not unlike "listener fatigue."

People commonly report that after listening on their headphones for "too long" they felt tired, irritable, fatigued, had a headache, or even dizzy. 

This is a regular report. 

In the conversion from digital signals to the audible sound, the length of notes is also within this digital code.  A converter needs thousands and thousands of a specific part to ensure that the length of the note is accurate, but this adds to the expense of the DAC.  When notes are 'off', even though we do not recognize it as such, the brain has to 'readjust' the communication (the tiny muscles within the ears) and cause the ear to work harder at reorganizing the signal to 'make sense' to us.  

This overwork of the ear muscles and devices is fatiguing.  

Listener fatigue is real, just as dulled listening, something we all adjust to do in childhood, is real. 

"Be careful!  There are 'big ears' in the room!" 

Children hear very well and parents often report, "they don't miss a thing!"

The 2 1/2 hear old who says, "Oh ***!" much to the embarrassment of her parents is often met with, "Where did she learn that word?"  (which was preceded by, "Did she really just say $%^&?")

The same parent will find, in just a few years, that the child will have learned how to 'tune out' more, and although they must be careful with what they say, they do not find that they have to be 'as careful', which is why by the time she is in her teens, she might be oft to say, "Oh, you were talking to me?"

The brain "sees"; not the eyes.  

Think of photos with more megapixels.  Over time, our eyes adjust.  

Recently, I watched "New York Mets 1973" rerun on television only to have the kids ask, "You watched this??"  

The picture is dull, I cannot see the faces, and the crowd is a blur, but yes, religiously, I watched this.

Of course, I may not be so enthusiastic today if our games were broadcast in such low definition.  In fact, when an entire game from 1986 was recently broadcast, I fond that I could not watch the entire game due to the dulled picture.   

Statement Analysis is the training of the brain to recognize and interpret signals of sensitivity within language. 

In early training, some are enthusiastic but grow discouraged and what they learned in seminar dissipates without practice.  

Yet, of those who give themselves to training, as they approach or pass the two year mark, they become so proficient at a higher level of listening, that they cannot 'shut it off', and often remark, particularly on little things, verb tenses, TL, or pronouns, on what they just heard.  

The brain's efficiency is not only at a new level, but it has 'rehearsed' itself at this new level enough to fix it solidly at this point.  

Can this level be lost?

I imagine it would take years to reverse and may have to be an act of the will to ignore speech in others for, perhaps, years.  

In reviewing the UK study, had they taken the same law enforcement who had 20 hours of training and gave them the exact same training, daily for the next 6 months, they would have found far greater results.  For example, in one case, the investigators said, "this is a reliable denial" because they saw the pronoun "I", the past tense verb, and the allegation present in the denial.  This is a 101 error: the subject added to the denial pushing it to "unreliable."

The testers also did not classify anything as "reliable or unreliable" only "did he do it, or not?" The proper answer was that he has given an unreliable denial and we need more information for a conclusion.  (he did it)  Instead, testers wanted a 'yes or no' response when it did not exist.  The Reliable Denial could have been fed to the subject by the investigators inadvertently, which would then be contaminated.  

Testers gave no room for contamination, either.  (We train to spot contamination in a statement and can even still analyze it in part). 

Training teaches us to go much further into a statement.  He may not have done "it", but he did do "something else", which is signaled in the statement. Or, he may have "done it" but the statement is not complete within itself.  Tell us what he said next, or what question he was asked, or if he was interviewed first.  All of these factors were ignored, leaving the Free Editing Process, the single most critical element within discernment, out of the equation entirely.  That these rookies scored over 70% is a surprise and a signal of just how effective training can be. 

From the entire 2015, investigators, security experts, psychology experts and human resource experts report either 100% accuracy, or  very close to it, in training.  

The habit of peer review does not end at the 24 month mark; it is life long and it is used whenever it can be used.  Those with decades of experience know this, and they know why it is necessary, even while the new analyst begins to analyze on Day One and will apply it to his or her work.  

How valuable is training?

When someone attends training who has been a long term reader of the Statement Analysis blog, I always ask them to review their comments and conclusions that they came to prior to training.  

They all report the same thing:  The difference is huge.  Everything from "I should have been more cautious!" to "this is more difficult than I thought" on to, "Where can I get more training?!"

Training is available in both seminars and from your home.  Please see Hyatt Analysis Services for opportunities for:

Statement Analysis Training
Advanced Analysis and Profiling
Ongoing Monthly Training and Peer Review. 

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Neil Young got old!

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:


Sidney Moorer

3 mins ·

Okay, I see dozens of attorneys following my page waiting to see the outcome of Jimmy's twisted circus of false accusations. I have a special job for one of you attorneys right now, today, if you want to show me what you can do. This one is a lawsuit for slander and libel so there's zero waiting to go ahead with immediate action. After intense research we know the real person(s) behind some elaborate defaming slander and libel. It's time to start making examples out of idiots that should keep their mouths shut when they have no idea what they're talking about. If you are interested in taking on a win win case please call Kirk Truslow's NMB office and ask to speak with Joy.

https://www.facebook.com/nala.belkin?fref=nf

Hey Jude said...

OT

I would be appreciative of any clarification on this:

Why does expanding upon a reliable denial have to make it unreliable? If a person was deeply upset and angered by a false accusation, might they, in addition to making the denial, also have the need and desire to say more - as in they are not that type of person, they didn't, haven't and never would do whatever they had been accused of, or suspected in?

I think it is natural that anyone who found themselves needing to make a denial might also want and find the need to say more. If they were to express distress and indignation at possible damage caused to their reputation, a wish to know why and from where the accusation arose - why should they not also be thinking and saying those things? I find it difficult to see how anyone would not want to react further - a false accusation is an assault on a person's character and dignity, so I don't understand why any more than a simple straightforward denial has to make it unreliable.

Does the context in which the denial is made make a difference? If a person were being formally interviewed, or interviewed by someone in the media - and added to a reliable denial, is it considered unreliable only in that circumstance? What about the free editing process, in which a person is not answering questions, but speaking/writing/recounting an accusation or allegation, without any pressure? They might make a reliable denial and then expand upon it quite comprehensively out of indignation or upset, because it's on their mind, and they want to express their feelings - I don't see how that could possibly be regarded as unreliable - it can't be unreliable if the fact is that the person did not do whatever it was he/she were suspected of, or accused in.

I am so confused there. Help, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Kind of intruding here.

Would love an analysis of this statement.

https://vimeo.com/161121430

A bit past the 5 minute mark when he is denying cover-up of child sexual abuse.

Just throwing out the opportunity, fwiw.

Thanks.

Peter Hyatt said...

Reliable and Unreliable speak to statistics and it is such that we are guided by.

Even when fueled with emotion, if we see additional words added to a RD we will eventually fail if we call it reliable.

Case in point

"I didn't steal the f***ing iPad!"

She was furious at being accused but I refused to clear her with this denial. Not only because "steal" is morally charged and "take" more acceptable, but she changed the iPad into a "f***ing iPad", which it is not.

The emotionally infused denial, rejected by me, eventually led to a confession.

This is why we follow principle and stay within it, because over time, it serves us well. The "need to say more" can come after the denial, which I accept.

"I didn't take the iPad. I have never stolen anything in my life!"

the biggest aspect of context is the questions themselves, and what language is given to the subject.

Also: just because a denial is unreliable, statistically, still does not conclude the matter. We continue the interview, sometimes fishing for it; especially when we sense innocence.

The emotions, themselves, will produce words and consider the speed of transmission as critical:

The brain tells the tongue what to say in less than a microsecond!

In the interview, I will bring the person into the free editing process; doing the most talking, and far removed from my words or others accusations. He will tell me the truth, once in the FEP, one way or another.

I just need to listen.

Peter Hyatt said...

By the way, anyone see this?

Warning: graphic photos of female victims in Pakistan:


http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/04/06/pakistani-muslims-fight-for-the-right-to-kill-their-daughters-and-wives/

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for the clarification, Peter - that helps.

i'd know she was lying if she said she'd never stolen anything in her life - everyone has stolen something at some point in life.


John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Raffaele Sollecito Gets Gig as TV Crime Expert in Italy

From Prison to Primetime: A Look at Amanda Knox's Ex Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
From Prison to Primetime: A Look at Amanda Knox's Ex, clip 2:06 seconds
This could be a case of turning legal lemons into lemonade.

Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend has gotten a gig as a TV crime expert, channeling his experience at the center of a murder case for the sake of solving Italian mysteries.

Raffaele Sollecito spent nearly 4 years in jail over the murder of his then-girlfriend's roommate. He and Knox were tried several times for the crime, riding a rollercoaster of convictions and appeals until they were exonerated last March.

Sollecito made his debut as a guest expert Saturday on a program about unsolved crimes that airs on Italy's 24-hour cable channel Tgcom24.

He told Britain's The Times newspaper that he is uniquely positioned to weigh in on the cases.

"I have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice, I know the faults of the justice system, what happens in jail and what happens when the media twists the truth," Sollecito told the paper. "The usual experts on these shows have seen these things through a window — I have lived them."

FROM MARCH 30, 2015: Raffaele Sollecito talks Knox, hails 'air of freedom' clip 3:23 seconds.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/raffaele-sollecito-gets-gig-tv-crime-expert-italy-n551596

tania cadogan said...

Peter, in the UK we still use pounds and pence.
We refused to join the euro, which as can be seen is going bosoms up with all the infighting :)

Hey Jude said...

We still have miles, yards,feet and inches - stones, pounds and ounces, too, whether we are meant to or not, which quite often we are not - some of us still resist going metric - it can be confusing for the kids.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

Parents of a Florida toddler who went missing last summer and was later found dead attended the 21-month-old boy's funeral before heading to prison this week.

Lonzie Barton was buried in a private ceremony on Tuesday in Glen Saint Mary nine months after he drowned in a bathtub as his mother and her ex-boyfriend reportedly had sex.

Christopher Barton and Lonna Lauramore Barton, who were were recently sentenced on multiple unrelated drug counts, attended the funeral before heading to prison, Baker County Sheriff Joey Dobson said.

V Todd Ferreira Funeral Services in Baker County agreed to bury Lonzie free of charge, according to the Florida Times-Union.

'He was buried in a private ceremony, and Lonna and Chris were there, plus his grandparents on both sides, family and a few friends. They wanted it that way,' Dobson told the Times-Union of the ceremony.

He added: 'Ebron left yesterday [Tuesday] to go to prison, and they [Lonna and Chris] will leave in the morning. I worked very closely with the funeral home and family on it, and it was the right thing to do for the both of them.'

Lonzie Barton was reported missing in July. Authorities searched unsuccessfully for him for months before Lauramore Barton's ex-boyfriend led them to the child's remains in January.

William Ruben Ebron Jr pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter and received 20 years. Lauramore Barton, 26, pleaded guilty to a neglect charge.

When Lonzie was reported missing on July 24, Ebron Jr told police he had left the boy alone in his car for a few minutes to retrieve something from the house.

He said when he returned, Lonzie and the car were gone.

But police later released surveillance video that showed Ebron's car driving past the camera, and later a man they believed to be Ebron running back the other direction.

For months, Ebron Jr denied involvement in Lonzie's disappearance, but after Lauramore Barton pleaded guilty last month and agreed to testify against him, things changed.

An emotional Ebron Jr led a convoy of investigators down a long, dark road to a wooded area in Bayard in January.

After searching for hours, an investigator saw a bone sticking out of a tire in a pile of garbage.

There was evidence that the boy's ribs had been broken previously and had healed, and there was some damage to his skull, according to the medical examiner's report.

Ebron pleaded guilty to child neglect, giving false information to police and tampering with evidence.

Lauramore Barton met Ebron, who was known as someone who could supply drugs, during her time as a stripper at Wacko's Gentlemen's Club.

They then began a romantic relationship that seemed to be focused on drugs, according to The Florida Times-Union.

Lauramore Barton's will serve seven years in prison for her two sentences. Christopher Barton, 41, was sentenced to three years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527029/Parents-attend-toddlers-burial-heading-prison.html

Zsuzsanna said...

"The brain has a distinct opinion of nails against a blackboard, or Yoko Ono singing."

This! Haha!

Lis said...

This is a fascinating post. It brings to mind a friend of mine, who told me of a friend she has who has perfect pitch. My friend said to her, "oh that must be wonderful!" and her friend exclaimed that no, it is not wonderful! She said everywhere she goes, everything is off key and it is so unpleasant, it about drives her out of her mind.

I guess in the same way, sometimes my ears get so tired of hearing lies and distortions. Truth is so refreshing, like music played on key.

Lis said...

Anonymous said...

"Kind of intruding here.

Would love an analysis of this statement.

https://vimeo.com/161121430 "

I only gave it a quick listen, not in depth, so here's just a few thoughts.

I read about Larry Caffery in the news and it is good to see the church responding to pressure to deal appropriately with the situation (finally). The church harbored this flaming pedophile for many years. I'm glad to hear that many people in the church are demanding information from their leaders, good for them. I appreciate hearing that the victims are important to the church.

It is concerning that one of the church people read Caffery's book and decided it wasn't appropriate for the library but did not follow up on the fact that Cafferey revealed the fact he is a pedophile in the book. I read an excerpt from the book myself and was horrified by it, I don't see how this guy's "cursory read" was able to determine it wasn't appropriate for the library but not able to draw the obvious conclusion or feel the need to bring it to anyone's attention. Caffery was involved in youth ministry at this church for years, in spite of the fact that he had this extremely troubling book out there.

It's disappointing when a pastor (Maresco) uses the passage of time as an excuse as to why he did not act on something he should have. The fact it was 20 years ago does not make any difference. It is minimizing language.

This church has had other problems with pedophiles so I would personally be skeptical about their "robust" protections. Hopefully they have improved but at one point he says "the children's ministry today is as safe as ever" - well, it has not been very safe in the past. I also noticed that he choked while talking about it...

The speaker urges people to trust God several times. Hopefully he does not mean instead of acting upon this situation or keeping their eyes wide open but rather in addition to.

Anyways, the statement you had asked about-

"What I really want you to hear in this is that there is a leaning that we have toward serving the victim and the victim's family. That was the motivation for withholding the information, it was not any attempt to cover up, as some are concerned about and some have even alleged."

In statement analysis, "what I want you to hear" is not necessarily the same as what is being said, so keep that in mind as you weight this statement out.

"in this"
it is "in this" situation that he wants you to hear this.

"there is a leaning that we have toward serving the victim and the victim's family"
I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean, because how the victim is to be served is not defined, other than initially withholding the perpetrator's identity. The pedophile, btw, is in the victim's family.
Nor is "leaning" defined. Is a "leaning" a commitment? a desire?

I'm confused as to how withholding the perpetrator's name was supposed to protect the victim(s). The *victim's* names are withheld to protect the victims. There may be more victims - the perpetrator's name needs to be out there!

"That was the motivation for withholding the information"
He admits that they "withheld" the information and that it was a decision they made.
"this" is close, "that" is distancing. He wants to distance himself/the church from the decision/the motivation.

"it was not any attempt to cover up"
-always note what is said in the negative.
"any" attempt to cover up as opposed to "an".

Anyways, that's just my 2cents, I'm sure others could draw more out of this.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Peter, i saw the images and they are horrific.
Why do people, usually men, think this is acceptable?
Why do they feel they are entitled to commit such atrocities on a woman simply because of their own belief system?
Why do women protect their menfolk who have done such a horrific crime?
Is it because they fear it being done to them for some perceived 'crime'?
Is it because they don't know any better due to their personal belief system?
Is it because they don't know any better due to the way they were brought up?
Would a woman feel differently if it was they that became the victim rather than someone else, a stranger?
Would a woman feel differently if it was they that became the victim rather than someone else, a woman known to them or a even family member?
Do the victims now feel differently about such actions after becoming a victim themselves?
What would happen if it were men having acid thrown in their faces?

Perhaps, in the future, maybe centuries from now, society will become matriarchal rather than patriarchal and it will be the men who will be forced to be covered up, to wear a chastity belt or medically controlled in relation to sex drive, to be treated as a danger to society, to be classed as 3rd class citizens, only useful for their strength or for breeding.

There will come a point where women will say no more.
Society needs plenty of women in order to maintain the population, what they don't need is plenty of men.
This is seen in farming noticeable, where it is all about the female stock, with all males bar a select few ending up as dinner.

As it stands, in countries where sons are wanted more than daughters, to keep the family line going, to keep the wealth in the family,sons have value and daughters are valueless, a cost, the gender difference is such that millions of men will never marry.
Women and girls are abducted and forced to marry a stranger in order for the line to continue through the generations.
They see this disparity and rather than making having a daughter valuable, desired, they still continue to want sons whilst aborting or killing girl children.

As a society we are really messed up, perhaps this is the beginning of our extinction, our own folly leading us down the path of no return.

Anonymous said...

I still prefer albums. to my uneducated ear, it sounds the best!

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting Hey Jude:

"We still have miles, yards,feet and inches - stones, pounds and ounces, too, whether we are meant to or not which quite often we are not..."
~~~~
Sorry, wrong! Everybody MUST get stones; Bob Dylan told me so himself!


Quoting Hey Jude:
"...some of us still resist going metric - it can be confusing for the kids."
~~~~

My fourth grade teacher (approx age 9-10 for those outside USA) told our class in 1976 that our country had formally decided to finally join the world and go metric.

I still remember most of the conversions; I do the temperature one in my head when I wake up after brain tumor and other long surgeries, to make sure they didn't put a decimal point in my IQ.

Forty years later, we're no closer to metric, despite how obviously it fits today's KISS mentality compared to our illogical system.

foodiefoodnerd said...

tanis, equally horrific is the men (and some women) who think it's appropriate and justified to brutally murder a person for simply not loving them back.

Not that lesser wrong behavior justifies murder, but cases in which the victim didn't cheat, betray, callously use, make a fool of, etc., their killer; they just stopped loving or never did.

The worst of those, the rejected killer didn't even love the victim; he or she just didn't like being the one calling it over.

Regardless, they all fall into the unfixable category, and should be grateful (eternally?) for the comparatively far more humane ending than they granted their victims.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Sorry, I meant to write that the only fix is a bullet to the head once found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Hey Jude said...

Foodie - sorry, I did not know you have a brain tumour. I hope the treatment you have is working, and for a good outcome for your surgeries.

---

We were introduced to metrics when I was ten - we'd learned imperial measurements by then, and weights. Our teachers were more conversant with imperial, and I suppose we picked up on their lack of enthusiasm for metric - it seemed something we were meant to know rather than something we wanted to know - that's how it was with me, too late, I can do it, but I hate it when I have to measure in cm rather than in inches.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Thanks, Hey Jude - and it's probably a good thing you couldn't tell just from my posts... :^D but maybe it's how the metric system was presented to us.

My teacher was excited and happy, like it'd been long awaited, and the 10-based system is so logical and simple compared to ours, so it just took?

And it's a fun way to exercise and test your brain even while stuck in traffic: when you see the rotating digital bank signs (Farenheit-time of day-Celcius) convert it before the answer cycles through. :^D
("oh, now I can tell," everyone thinks...)

The Sheep said...

I'm a teacher- I'm taking 64 teenagers to a mock legislature for a long weekend. It's in the city where welive but it's very involved- they stay in hotels and are expected to be present for the whole thing not drop In and out, though there are a few exceptions- ACT test this Saturday, a few athletes to a game, etc. Most of them emailed or spoke with me...no red flags, permission granted. Just bring signed note.

I got one short email from a girl saying there was a family emergency and she needed to leave early from the conference. It didn't sit well so I said I need parent verification. An email then came from the parent's name @ gmail saying family member unexpectedly and suddenly went ill. Release to my nephew (gives name). Hinky meter. I show it to admin, another colleague. They don't get why it's hinky.

One phone number not working, one voicemail full. Daughter and mother email one and same. Send dad email, no quick reply. Finally, Phone call from "mom" saying release to nephew. (Facebook shows he's a college boy ladies' man)

Then first night of conference, a text from dad- the first reply I got from a number on file:

"Do not release ____ at all during conference. Only to me or mother. Thank you for looking out for her."

My colleagues wanted to know how I knew.

I'm telling them all about Statement Analysis and Peter.

Peter Hyatt said...

Tania,

No matter how many cases, nor how much study...

I'll never emotionally grasp it.

I get that they are raised in supremacy and that they are de-sensitized by watching their own mothers beaten.

These are intellectual understandings and go right into analysis.

But emotionally?

I'm with you.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

The Sheep~

you made me chuckle this morning.

Teachers and school workers should study SA.

They have a wide open practice field rivaled by few!

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

PS:

Tania,

see new rape article.

It was many years ago that I was asked, regarding the Central Park rape, how any male could be sexually aroused by a bloody, crying victim. He even asked me, "consider yourself hiding behind a bush..."

There is nothing romantic about it.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Peter, I too wonder how a man can become physically aroused whilst crouching behind a bush, waiting for his victim to come past.
What is going on in his head that not only allows him to consider raping someone (male or female)it allows him to think about what he is going to do and also that gets him physically aroused at the same time?

What has he seen,heard and done that culminates in him ready to pounce and sexually aroused?

It is even more concerning when we learn the rapist is married and has children, that he is mr wonderful, when it comes to family, he does good deeds, is a good worker and everything else that would make him appear to be the last person who would commit such a horrific and personal crime against another.
Does he decide to commit the crime on a specific night, is he driven to do it by his own physical urges, is it a result of being denied it at home?
How does he explain himself to his family if they ask awkward questions, how can he tell them to be careful out there and to take precautions when it is he they need to protect themselves from?
How does he feel about other men committing the same crime?
How does he feel once he is caught?
How does he justify it to himself?
What would he say to the public regarding protecting themselves from people like him?

How much is down to nurture and not nature?
Is it possible that in the future we will be able to see those who will be the future criminals, what their crimes would be and find ways to stop them before they start?

Seagull said...

Great article. I concur. Was this report / survey the one undertaken in 2001 by The Home Office / Smith? I believe Aldert Vrij was the trainer or assessor if it's the same report.

Anonymous said...

@ Lis

Thank you. I appreciate everything you said (about the vimeo segment.)

Amazing how truth is so clear and deception such a hodgepodge of verbiage.

I only recently discovered this incredibly informative site.

Now I'm getting hooked.

Thanks again.

Nic said...

Janet Jackson has postponed her Unbroken Tour until 2017. Initially refund were denied because ticket outlets only refund for cancellations. There was quite a "nasty" backlash so fans are being refunded if they choose not to wait for the dates to be scheduled/their ticket honoured.

Here is a transcript of her announcement with a link to the short video right afterwards. My impression out of the gate was emotion perfectly placed.


Hey you guys. On August 31st, as you probably know, I launched the Unbreakable World Tour. Uh, first I just want to thank all the fans for coming out and seeing the show, thank you so much, you guys made it so enjoyable for me each and every night. Um, we’re in the second leg of the tour and there actually has been a sudden change. I thought it was important that you be the first to know: (happy sigh) My husband and I are planning our family. Uh, so I’m going to have to delay the tour. Please if you could try and understand that it’s important that I do this, now. I have to rest up - doctor’s orders. But um, I have not forgotten about you. I will continue the tour as soon as I possible can. Uh, I want to thank th, the dancers, the band, my entire crew, you guys were so professional, so incredibly talented, so supportive and loving each and every night. Thank you so much and I can’t wait for us to get started again. Thank you to Live Nation for your loyal partnership and support. You guys are the best at what you do in your field and know that’s why I’m with you. Once again, thank you to all the fans for your love, your undying love, your loyalty, that means so much to me. You’re truly appreciated, and it-it’s been a long journey and you guys have been there each and every step of the way and I really do appreciate that. Thank you so much. Insha’Allah. I will see you soon. I love you. Bye

Video to fans:
https://amp.twimg.com/v/f778ad88-471b-49f1-9aec-11066bd54d29

Nic said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, Live Nation is the organization who organizes the tour and sells the tickets.

Skeptical said...

According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in a field. There have been updates to this theory since the book was published. Does it hold true for SA? 10,000 hours divided by the standard 2080 hours of work in a year is equivalent to about 4.80 years. (That's assuming anyone could survive 40 hours a week of the intense study required SA and stay sane.) Dedicating 10 hours a week, it would take about 20 years, 15 hours a week, about 12 years.

However here are dissenting opinions on the 10,000 hours. If an accurate testing was done, it would be interesting to see who becomes proficient at SA and how long it took them.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/too-hard-for-science-seeing-if-10000-hours-make-you-an-expert/
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-destroys-malcolm-gladwells-10000-rule-2014-7
http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwell-explains-the-10000-hour-rule-2014-6

Peter Hyatt said...

Skeptical,

the post is so interesting that...

see new article!

Peter