n another life, I played chess regularly and loved it.
Due to the busy lifestyle and raising children, I did not have time to play in tournaments to establish a true rating of my play. When I did play in tournaments, I was surprised at the level of play as well as the physical exertion of uninterrupted concentration. I understood why so many paid for private chess lessons to improve in a game in which they were never to become professional. The satisfaction of increase, alone, in their play, drove them.
Lessons are expensive, with an initial consultation at easily more than $100 over the phone or Skype.
In the consultation, the nationally rated expert (for adults) plays a game with the adult student and knows, within this hour, precisely what areas must be studied. It is, in effect, the "perfect post mortem" of analysis. He knows what work to prescribe, what challenges need to be met, and what areas are already strong in their foundation. The instructor analyzes, not the game, but the person, and prescribes the appropriate strategy for improvement.
The rating system of chess pits one against another and builds statistically on results. If, for example, a 1200 rated player goes up against a player 200 points higher, the lower player is likely to lose 3 out of 4 games.
At 1400, this chess player, a low level amateur, is likely to beat everyone he or she meets at barbecues, picnics and family outings, with ease. He is this good at playing people in chess, but he is quite low in the world of tournaments.
The teacher, rated more than 1800 or 2000 ELO points has worked his way through the 1200 and 1400 levels to a degree that when he sees someone at this common level for a good adult player, he will almost instantly recognize weaknesses, misunderstandings, and missed patterns in the 1400 player and can expertly assign the proper mode of study and correction.
He remembers the struggles and knows what to prescribe.
It's really quite amazing.
Recently, a newly promoted detective, thriving on training in analysis, asked about a seminar in his part of the country. I wrote to him that it was a good, solid "101" seminar, but its use is best for those who are skeptical of our science, in general. If it succeeds, it will get his officers to be "bit by the bug" of analysis and detecting deception.
But, I cautioned him, there is the downside.
Without his expert guidance, they will be overconfident, misapply principles due to the over simplicity of the presentation, and bring discredit to the work.
The at home study course we offer is a complete Statement Analysis course.We offer small monthly tuition payments rather than upfront and the 12 months of support is what will make the difference in your career.
It is not short blog entries, and once completed it is coupled with a full year of support: the analyst is never "out there" on his own.
There are many who have completed Statement Analysis Seminars and have a certificate on the wall saying such.
There are far less who are proficient at it, and those that are, are those who are forever learning and honing their skills, studying, practicing, applying it, and practicing more.
It is exciting to solve one's first case, but the downside is the risk that is associated with some of the over-simplyging of principle.
Too often, I have seen it lead to error.
"That" is distancing language; "This" is closer.
But what kind of distance is it?
It is simply geographical?
"I miss that little girl!" is not necessarily a grandmother who has distanced herself, emotionally from her granddaughter.
It may be that her daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter moved out of state.
I find this particularly egregious when 20/20 hindsight is applied and the errors of overly simplifying our work could have, and should have, been avoided.
Formal training, incessant, strong and encouraging, is the single greatest traction applied for a career in investigation.
Too often the professional hits a 'ceiling' in his or her work, and does not advance to where the talent should have brought them.
Advanced training, team analysis and a proper diagnosis of the work is the solution.
It means batting 1.000 is the goal.
no losses, and no draws, in chess.