This young married couple shared a story of violence that caused them to move out of Chicago, that made national press and went "viral."
Since this is a Statement Analysis Blog, the focus is on whether or not they are telling the truth. To us, the truth means that the account of what happened is truthful, accurate, and without misleading points, but especially...
without withholding critical points.
90% of deception is through missing information. When you read "the average person tells x amount of lies per hour", it is incorrect. Few people lie outright (less than 10%) and among those who will fabricate reality outright, even they, often within a statement, will still avoid the internal stress of a direct lie. In a deceptive statement, it is common to have the majority of information reported to be accurate.
In this video, the young man asserts that he was punched by a stranger, without cause or provocation.
In a truthful account (accurate, without deliberately withholding information), the form of such is generally this:
The assault is the main part of the account.
If reliable, the assault will be the focus of the account, with about 50% of the words dedicated to the assault. An assault is very personal and the language should relate such. Since it takes humans time to process something like this, the closer the statement to the event, the more we are able to judge the form of the statement, including the location of emotions.
Generally, though minor deviations are acceptable:
25% of the words used will be dedicated to what happened prior to the assault;
50% of the words will then tell us 'what happened' with the assault (punch), and
25% of the words will tell us what happened next.
The overwhelming number of deceptive or unreliable statements are heavily weighted in the introduction.
Psychologically, there are two basic reasons:
1. The subject knows he is going to either deceive or be unreliable, therefore, there is a sense of avoidance or delay in getting to the unreliable portion.
2. The subject, knowing he is not 100% truthful, feels this, emotionally, and expresses a "need" to be believed. This need, itself, belies the weakness.
Therefore, he has a need to be believed so:
Question: how does he satisfy this need?
Answer: he persuades.
He (or they) have a need to persuade, with undermines the strength of truthful and reliable information, and often narrative build ('story telling') to establish a crescendo of information that will cause the listener/reader to believe them.
This is where we often find the emotions.
If the assault came reasonably close to the statement, we consider this "editing", in which the emotions are artificially placed in the "perfect" or "logical" part of the story.
Many years ago, I had a 9mm pointed at my face.
I was not afraid. I was numb.
After I went to bed, I woke up with deep fear. It simply took time to process the emotions. If I had not talked about it and caused the brain to process this powerful event, it could have left an unpleasant memory with negative consequences.
When I reported it to police, and thereafter to family and friends, it was without emotion. Yet, as the years went by, when I have shared the story, the emotion that I felt initially ('numb', almost as if I was watching myself with some form of protective disassociate thinking), and the emotion later (fear) became part of the narrative.
The editing in of the emotion was due to processing.
The closer the statement is to the assault, attempted assault, trauma, etc, the less time for processing, the more reliable this principle of artificial placement is.
With the time counter on the video, note when the punch enters.
What percentage of words are dedicated before the punch?
There is obviously much humor that commentators are likely to write about in this video, yet it is still of value for analysis. Even within the context of that which is humorous to observers, we do find personality traits, self absorption and a strong need to be both seen, and believed, within the language. Some commentators are likely to keenly focus in on these elements, and see if the couples' other videos affirm the view point.
One that should be watched is their response to those who do not believe they are telling the truth.
Statement Analysis recognizes the complexity and hard work involved in discerning truth from deception because even within an unreliable statement, or even a deceptive statement, there is much that is truthful and reliable.
I use, as an example of this in seminars, some statements that the subject "did it", yet, every sentence is technically truthful.