|Greek Ambassador's wife...|
Assertion: A lie is weak.
No matter how often you've heard otherwise, in statement analysis the lie lacks the strength of psychological commitment. When we have a strong psychological commitment in a lie we have now moved to a most statistically unlikely (and dangerous) position.
Qualification: In statement analysis, a lie is weak.
A lie can be very powerful with impacts that can be more destructive than any natural occurring catastrophe known to history.
The term "psychopath" is overused, as is now "sociopath" and in lie detection, it can be even more so. It can reach a point where every murder is "psychopathic" in the profile, quickly losing any significant meaning to the investigation.
'The psychopath or sociopath can pass the polygraph because he feels no guilt and no remorse.'
Not true. This comes from Anthony Hopkin's character, "Hannibal Lector."
Even a subject with pronounced sociopathic tendencies will feel the internal stress of a lie due to the possibility of being caught with the subsequent consequences.
We have covered quite a bit of "need to persuade" which is so common in deceptive statements that analysts abbreviate it (NTP)
The Need to Assert must be carefully examined in context, with, perhaps, a more acute awareness of the context.
There is the 'unspoken' defensive posture to be considered but this must be combined with:
There is no spoken accusation to the contrary.
The need to assert, unnecessarily, is often a signal of projection and weakness.
"I am not an alcoholic" is something I say, without warning or context, in seminars to highlight this theme using both "the rule of the negative" ("I am not...") for elevation and the "needless assertion"which causes the analyst to ask:
Why do you have the need to assert?
Why this topic?
The need to assert the unnecessary is often an attempt to conceal deception.
"The terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion." George W. Bush said on 9/11 as the world watched and listened.
Can you think of any other religion that warrants this assertion? George W. Bush looked at both precept (teaching) and precedent (1400 years of obedient violence) and boldly lied.
Objection: he was ill educated in the truth of Islam.
Answer: regardless of his education, at this point in American government, Islam was not only known and studied, but daily briefs of daily murders, around the world, gave him, as Commander-in-Chief, a more thorough education than most Americans would have in a life time.
What we look for in the need to assert is the element of "necessity" or more specifically: the lack thereof.
"I had nothing to do with his murder" is not simply an unreliable denial, but it is to assert, in the negative, association with with a murder. This should be unnecessary. This statement recently came from an ambassador's wife, who was cheating on him and it brings her into association with the murder, warranting what association she feels, subjectively, to the murder. The wife — Francoise De Souza Oliveira said:
“It’s not my fault if I couldn’t stop it."
We now see why she brought herself, via the negative, into association with the murder. She may be judicially cleared from it, but as to being associated with it; she, herself, asserts the link.
When an needless assertion has been made, there is, beneath this, a very sensitive point for the subject and can be deceptive, but it is almost always "projection" within the subject's language.
Barak Obama said he was proud that on his watch no terrorist attack took place on American soil that was directed by international terrorists. Even main stream media noted the heavy qualification as necessary with some noting, "What comfort does such boasting bring to the families of the dead in Orlando?"
He has now taken to travel and twitter to proclaim, without prompt, his "successes" while the phrase, "make America great again" presupposes the need to address the loss of greatness.
Recall his mantra that Islamic terror had nothing to do with Islam, even though:
1. The actor confessed his motive
2. The actor quoted his source (koran/hadith)
3. The actor accurately quoted his source
4. Islamists affirmed the attack.
Hence, the statement "Islam is a religion of peace" is an unnecessary assertion of which the sensitivity is due to deception. It is as if politicians say it enough, it will become 'truth.'
It also demands the definition of what "peace" is. In its ideology, "peace" is submission. For the non-believer, it is not only to submit to the islamists, but to verbally acknowledge their subordinated humiliation. This is why a lack of 'confession' can lead to some of the most vicious violence possible. In Paris, the Islamists used techniques that main stream media deliberately suppressed, including castration and torture upon those who would not say the mandated submissive statement about "allah and mohammad his messenger."
In Germany, Angela Merkel ordered the security tapes of Cologne New Year's Eve "tarrusch" (rape game) destroyed. With more than 1200 attacks in this city alone, something had to be done to protect women.
This year, Cologne police stopped and searched all Islamists and reduced the sexual assaults greatly. The next day, German main stream media declared this "racist." (recall Obama's effort to main "middle east north africa" to be considered a "race").
Analysts love statistics.
We are guided, like a winding road, to turn left or turn right, based upon statistically likeliness, while yielding, repeatedly, to the statement itself.
This form of active analysis takes
1. memorized principle
2. explained and understood principle
3. applies it in an 'unraveling' manner, working with other analysts, in which the conclusion does not "suggest itself", but reveals itself, overwhelmingly, allowing for the at or near 100% accuracy, dwarfing all other schools of deception detection.
We note the "need to assert" and ask "why?"
Why is this necessary to the subject?
It is a need to assert unnecessarily.
In a domestic violence call,
"I don't know nothing about crack"
a. introduces "crack" or drugs, into the statement
b. does so in the "rule of the negative", elevating importance.
Recently in employment analysis, the word "money" was repeated enough times to be very concerned about theft.
In the Go Fund Me scam, the subject, Jenny Williams, has blamed her husband for the "fake hate" and arson scam, while her statement affirmed her need to assert her and her husband's alibi, while under no accusation. She was amazed at the "arson investor"; revealing the lack of preparedness she, herself, took, in masterminding this scam.
The Need to Assert is noted, but when it is unnecessary, it becomes very sensitive, or important, often masking the need for deception, while projecting weakness.
When analysts study religion, they do so as any other belief system: as ideology.
We note, with particular elevation of attention, an ideology or belief system that is:
a. appealing to the base elements within human nature
b. opposing the base elements within human nature.
We then view the assertion and ask, "why?" repeatedly.
The Need to Assert, unnecessarily, is often found in the language of infidelity. The cheater makes unnecessary assertions that come under the category of "Need To Assert" underlining the "Need to Persuade" that it supports.