Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Donna Brazille: Deception Detection Lesson

Donna Brazille has generously given us another opportunity for a lesson in deception detection. 

When we lie, we disrupt a smooth process of thinking that comes from experiential memory.  This disruption is often seen in the use of additional, unnecessary words, as well as in self references. 

A self reference helps the subject avoid having to go into memory and give a deceptive answer while avoiding words that indicate guilty knowledge.  It is to not work from experiential memory, but memory of what one said earlier.

The disruption process reveals the weakness in its "need to persuade" rather than boldly assert. 

Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile now says her conscience is "completely clear."

Previous analysis concluded deception indicated. 

Here are more statements: 

“I can just once again let you know that as far as I know, that CNN has never provided me with questions, absolutely ever.”

It is very important that we listen to what one says.  Here is an example of such listening:

"I didn't cause my mother's death" is a strong assertion of not causing his mother's death.  It still does not clear the subject, for example, if he gave her drugs and she overdosed, the drugs caused her death; not him.  If she drowned in water because he sabotaged the boat, the water drowned her but not him.  So although it is a strong assertion of denial of the final cause, it does not necessarily indicate de facto innocence.  

But watch the progression here:

"I know I didn't cause my mother's death."

Listen to what he said. 

He did not state that he didn't cause his mother's death, instead, he stated what he "knows" as this is how he chose to construct his sentence, in less than a millisecond in time.  

It is an assertion of knowledge; not a denial.  

"I know I didn't shoot the guy" asserts what one knows, rather than an actual denial.   (in fact, the knowledge he asserts will likely be connected to the crime).  

Now listen to Donna Brazille, who has a "completely" clear conscience:

“I can just once again let you know that as far as I know, that CNN has never provided me with questions, absolutely ever.”

What is she asserting?

She is asserting what she "can" let you know.  This is not a denial of being "provided" (not "given") the questions.  

Let's continue with this statement: 

“I can just once again let you know that as far as I know, that CNN has never provided me with questions, absolutely ever

Consider how many times she must qualify her denial:

a.  "I can"
b.  "just" (dependent word)
c.  "once"
d.  "again" (indication of self reference)
e.  "let you know" is to give us the affirmation of the statement:  she is letting us know something.  This is her assertion.  It is not a denial. 
f.  "as far as I know" is to qualify that which needs no qualification because it is she, alone, who is the topic of the sentence:  she was the one who gave questions to the Clinton campaign
g.  "never" is not "did not"
h.  "provided me" is not "gave me"; to be "provided" would then remove the personal connection (move towards passivity) and allow for various means of communication, including simply leaving the questions on a desk top to be 'found', etc. 
i. Not only "ever", but
j.  "absolutely ever."

Deception Indicated. 

Now, return to our lesson about avoiding experiential memory in deception.  By going into experiential memory when intending deception, there is an increase in internal stress due to the disruption of processing thought.  There is also a very real possibility of 'leakage' that is, the inadvertent release of guilty information within the words intended for deception.   Note how she begins with the self reference, disconnecting the experiential memory:  

“And as I said repeatedly, CNN in the 14 years I was associated with CNN, I have never received anything. If I had a blank piece of paper that would basically be the end of this conversation. I never get documents from CNN.”

Here she avoids the stress of experiential memory, instead using the 'self reference' of what she has said before. 

Besides the unreliability of "never", we find a person who moves, within the same statement, from past tense to present tense.  This quick shift, in context, indicates a strong desire to avoid making a direct lie.  

This is to show struggle and the reason why one seeks to use a self reference.  Like a child trying to keep track of lies, it is stressful.  

This is something that a deceptive person instinctively does to assist in avoiding having to go into experiential memory.  It is, in a sense, a means of avoidance.  

Deceptive people qualify their denials and avoid the direct past tense "did not" verb usage.  Instead, they tell themselves, "I'm a good person.  I would never do that..." as if there is someone else inside of them that did do the bad.  This is an old gnostic belief brought back to life by deceptive people. 



“As it pertains to the CNN debates, I never had access to questions and would never have shared them with the candidates if I did.”
— Brazile, statement released by the DNC, Oct. 11

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Her statements are staggering and do not flow. Why doesnt she just refuse interviews? Is she perhaps revealing via word choice, claiming to be christian, that she knows shes lyin but its for a greater good which is an HC victory? Which means shes trying to prevent, even by lyin, a greater evil which in her mind is a DJT victory.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

A good read- Thanks for the lesson, Peter! It's also interesting that Donna said:

"As it pertains to the CNN debates..."- Why is there a need for her to quantify which debates? Has she forwarded Debate questions or documents for other debates? In our house we call this "hedging". ;)

"...I would never have..."- This is not the righteously indignant "I did not______!" retort of the unjustly accused innocent.

"...I would never have shared them with the candidates if I did."- The bolded fragment is likely true. A Democratic National Committee staffer would not have shared debate questions with a Republican candidate at all, much less in advance of a public debate. Note that Donna could not truthfully say "I did not share them/debate questions with Hillary/Hillary Clinton/Ms. Clinton even if I did I have access to the questions."

rob said...

Everyone knows she did it and she is lying about it. Just like Hillary and everyone associated with her. They are liars. And they are superior to the rest of us and are justified in doing it.

Anonymous said...

I'd like someone to ask her in person why she lied.