Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Yale Professor Bandy Lee's Statement Analyzed

Another Yale professor is making headlines, coming off the suspension of a "multicultural" social justice professor for racial insults against white people, the poor, and for those who do not have her intelligence and education level. 

Here, the professor is in the news  for diagnosing President Trump.  

This is something that practicing psychiatrists are not permitted to do.  

What does her  statement tell us? 

From Campus Reform:   A Yale University professor of psychiatry has continued to push the ethical boundaries of her field by once again saying President Trump’s “mental impairment” makes him unfit for office

Yale prof: Trump’s ‘mental impairment’ a ‘state of emergency’A Yale University professor of psychiatry has continued to push the ethical boundaries of her field by once again saying President Trump’s “mental impairment” makes him unfit for office.

Professor Bandy Lee, an instructor in Yale’s Department of Psychiatry, sat down with Chauncey DeVegato discuss her controversial approach to the President, saying that the “situation has come to such a critical level” that she had no choice but to “speak out.”

“In fact, a state of emergency exists and we could no longer hold back,” she added, arguing that the “highest ethical principles” of her field actually mandate that she speak out.

The quotes are intermingled with the article, but follow the pronouns.  Thus far, "we" is used to make this assertion.  

We have an obligation to because many lives and our survival may be at stake,” she continued, discussing an April conference she organized for like-minded colleagues called “Duty to Warn,” the name of which references a psychologist’s immunity from legal repercussions when disclosing information about a client who exhibits violent behavior.

We now listen to see if she will continue her theme of not being alone with her opinion and how she references the conference.  

As Campus Reform previously reported, the conference claimed to have an “ethical responsibility” to inform the American public about Trump’s “dangerous mental illness,” a defense Lee reiterated in her interview with DeVega.

Here we get an important change of pronoun.  When going from "we" to "I", we have the subject raising importance.  She was not willing to stand alone in her opinion (which may be considered a diagnosis in the ethics of pyschiatry) 

I’ve been thinking from the very beginning that he has a lot of signs of mental impairment, and that I think was revealed by the conference that I organized, 

Note during the use of "we" there is no weak assertion:

"We could no longer hold back"

"We have an obligation..."

Here, there is no equivocation, but when she is alone:

"I think", which is a weak assertion not only enters her language, but is repeated.   

Unnecessary information is deemed by the analyst as "doubly important" because it not only reverses the law of economy, but it is unnecessary for the sentence.  But when it is also unnecessary for the context, it becomes paramount:

and that I think was revealed by the conference that I organized, 

Why would it matter who organized the conference if the issue is of "vital importance to our survival"?

This shows the underlining priority of the subject:  self promotion.  

she said, stating that once she and her colleagues “broke the silence” and “brought out mental health professionals to bear upon this,” she received “an explosion” of messages from peers who had “been wanting to speak about this but  not been able to figure out a way to do it responsibly and ethically.”

Note the order of "responsibly" coming before the word used in licensing:  "ethically.

DeVega goes on to question Lee about the particular ethical standards she has been flirting with, namely the “Goldwater Rule,” which DeVega dismissively described as “informal” and non-binding in the current context.

“When there’s such grave mental disability that it’s affecting the public sphere—the political sphere, such as in the current position of power—then those lines get blurred,” Lee responded, later adding that “there’s no rule that politics will never enter the sphere of health or our profession.

However, an August 2016 posting on the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) website explicitly warns psychologists to resist psychoanalyzing “the candidates,” saying it would be “unethical” and “irresponsible” to abuse their credibility for political purposes.

“Every four years, the United States goes through a protracted elections process for the highest office in the land. This year, the election seems like anything but a normal contest, that has at times devolved into outright vitriol. The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.”

Analysis Conclusion:  Brandy Lee's self promotion of her organized conference  is found in the unnecessary addition to her statements.  This is a priority for her. 

The attention seeking has now come to fruition as it reached media.   

It remains to be seen what such attention seeking may mean to the school's reputation and to the Board of the American Psychiatric Association. 

When it comes to the her opinion of the President, she does not wish to be psychologically alone.  

Psychiatrists diagnose patients with 

1.  Medical examination, including blood work
2.  Review of medical history
3.  Review of medications
4.  Interview with patient
5.  Collateral interviews 

In her desire for self promotion, she may bring disrepute to herself, her position and school,  but may bring ethical and legal issues to the surface. 

Ambition blinds even the most intelligent of people.  

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Shaan Farooqi: Kidnapping Statement Examined

Three men in masks leapt out, grabbed the victim, who was walking home, and threw him in the back of the van.

The NY Daily News reported exclusively:  Three masked men snatched a Queens college student off the street, threw him into a van, and robbed and threatened to kill him as they showered him with racial epithets, police said Friday.

A black van rolled up to 21-year-old Shaan Farooqi, a City Tech student of Pakistani descent, on 165th St. and 81st Ave. in Hillcrest about 4:35 p.m. Thursday, police said.

Three men in masks allegedly jumped out, grabbed Farooqi, who was walking home, and threw him in the back of the van.

This is a traumatic event and we expect him to state what happened:  

First I was confused because a black van came and cut me off right in the middle of the street, but when three men came out I got really scared. I’m like OK, what’s happening here because this is a pretty good neighborhood. I’ve been living here my whole life and nothing really happens here.  I just got really scared and frightened,” 

Here the subject does not tell us so much of what happened, but of his feelings.  The element within his feelings is timing.  

He begins with "First" which tells us that we should expect logic to continue with secondary events.  

Note he feels the need to explain why he felt "confused" here.  This makes his feeling of confusion very sensitive.  
Next, he tells us that the priority is not "three men" kidnapping him, but the timing of his feelings:

"but when three men came out..."

This is to slow down the pace of the statement and not get to the actual kidnapping.  

Please note that in fabricated realities where a subject is lying and must choose a number between 2 and 9, liars often gravitate to 3.  "Three boats chased me" from Texas' Falcon Lake deceptive murder account by Tiffany Hartley. 

Note also:     "Three men" tied up Charlie Rogers in her fake hate account.  

He does not say three men came out.  He says "when", which is to divert attention from the kidnappers to the timing of his emotion.  

In traumatic events, emotions take time to process.  This is why we look for the location of emotions within a statement.  When they appear right at the perfect place, it is often an indicator of artificial placement.  

In truthful accounts, unless a long period of time has passed, the emotions show up well after the account of what happened.  

I’m like OK, what’s happening here because this is a pretty good neighborhood. I’ve been living here my whole life and nothing really happens here.  I just got really scared and frightened,” 

"I'm like OK" is the language of narrative building, or as police say, "story telling."  The word "OK" indicates acceptance, which is contrary to violent trauma or surprise as this context is alleging.  

It is not "OK" to have "three men come out" at a subject.  This is consistent with either fabrication or the possibility of knowing at least one of the persons involved.  It is to find "agreement" within trauma.  

"I've been living here my whole life" is commentary within the statement about three men.  This is also indicative of narrative or story telling language.  

It is something that might enter the language decades after such a shocking event but not here.  

They told Farooqi they were on a mission to “intercept” him as they punched him and snatched his wallet — which contained just $6 — along with his ID, cops said.

“Get out of my country, you sand nigger, or I’ll kill you and your family,” one of his attackers said, according to police.

The attacker was not acting in unison with the other two, according to this, otherwise, "get out of our country" and "we'll kill you" is expected.  

The trio dragged Farooqi out of the opposite side of the van, dropped him in the middle of the street and sped off.
He was not seriously injured.

“I’ve never been targeted,” the entertainment technology student said. 

What would produce such a statement?  Does the subject feel alone and unnoticed in life?  This is also to avoid saying that he has never been "attacked" or "kidnapped" before.  This does not fit the language but suggests something else. 

“I am just a regular guy. I have no friends. Nobody knows of my political views. I stay to myself.”

This gives us further insight into his personality and priority.  Those who call themselves "just" (comparison) a "regular" guy indicate their personal belief of something to the contrary.  

It is similar to when one says, "I am a normal male."  The word "normal" is used by a subject who has been considered, by himself and/or others, to be not normal.  

Our subject is "just" (dependent word) a "regular guy" suggests that he may have another thought in mind about himself. 

The subject may be seeking for some recognition and relevancy in the world of "entertainment."  

Analysis Conclusion:

Although there is not much to go by in direct quotes, what we do have raises suspicion of not only a "fake hate" claim, which is very popular today, but that the subject may be seeking to divert something away from his "regular" activities.  

He gives indicators of sensitivity and his choice of 3 attackers is noted.  

His placement of emotion appears to be artificial editing.  

There are strong reasons to doubt his account.  For a complete conclusion we need more of his statement, but suffice for now, the priority of his statement rests with him, his feelings and the need of some form of diversion.  

hat tip:  John  

Tiger Woods' Statement

Tiger Woods, professional golfer, was arrested for drunk driving and made a statement useful in analysis.  

Question:  Does he take responsibility as he claims?  Is the sentence, 

"I take full responsibility" the truth?

“I understand the severity of what I did and I take full responsibility for my actions. I want the public to know that alcohol was not involved. What happened was an unexpected reaction to prescribed medications. I didn’t realize the mix of medications had affected me so strongly. I expect more from myself, too. I will do everything in my power to ensure this never happens again,” 

This statement gives insight into his thinking. 

Several years ago, Woods was involved in a divorce scandal where it was publicly learned that he had an unimaginable number of girlfriends and trysts on a daily or weekly basis and that this was his norm. 

To maintain this, he had to commit incessant deception which, itself is stressful, in order to keep his life private from the media, but more challenging, private from his wife. 

This was kept up in a way that indicates habituation of deception as a lifestyle or norm.  

As the brain adapts to the need to deceive, the patterns can become near or at unbreakable levels. 

When his serial infidelity was public, including payouts to girlfriends around the country, Woods blamed "sex addiction" rather than take responsibility for his own behaviors.  


Tiger Woods maintained a lifestyle that required incessant daily lying.  As this has its own habituation and desensitization process, it is almost impossible to turn off. 

We see this in his statement above.  

Media reported that Woods was driving a 2015 Mercedes-Benz “erratically, all over the road” when he was stopped, law-enforcement reported. 

Woods grew “arrogant” during the stop and refused to take a Breathalyzer test, which is grounds for an automatic arrest.

Media also reported that his representatives repeatedly called the Jupiter Police Department to find out if the cop was wearing a body camera.  This shows their priority. 

Woods spent 3 ¹/2 hours in the Palm Beach County Jail before being released at 10:50 a.m., according to online booking records.

Jupiter Police Department spokeswoman Kristin Rightler said she didn’t know if the allegations against Woods involved alcohol or drugs and said his arrest report wouldn’t be available at least until Tuesday.

From TMZ: 

Woods’ girlfriend, stylist Kristin Smith, the ex-wife of former Dallas Cowboys safety Gerald Sensabaugh, learned about Woods’ arrest during a phone call she received inside a Neiman-Marcus store in Dallas, TMZ said.
Several shoppers said Smith “went crazy,” saying, “I knew it, I knew it,” the Web site said.
Smith then reportedly began crying, bought $5,000 worth of merchandise and left the store.

Woods became the world’s first billionaire athlete and enjoyed a squeaky-clean reputation until the 2009 personal debacle sparked his fall from grace.

Woods infamously smashed his Cadillac SUV into a fire hydrant and tree in a neighbor’s yard early on the morning after Thanksgiving, sparking a spectacular scandal as it emerged that wife Nordegren had chased him out of their house with a golf club upon confirming his infidelity.

The statement:  Does Woods Take Responsibility?

“I understand the severity of what I did and I take full responsibility for my actions. I want the public to know that alcohol was not involved. What happened was an unexpected reaction to prescribed medications. I didn’t realize the mix of medications had affected me so strongly. I expect more from myself, too. I will do everything in my power to ensure this never happens again,” 

Beginning with the pronoun, "I", the subject is psychologically "in" this statement which indicates that we are likely to find reliable information within the statement, even if the subject is deceptive.  

“I understand the severity of what I did and I take full responsibility for my actions. 

The statement of "full responsibility" is one associated with the opposite.  See prior analysis on "responsibility" in a statement.  

In context we look for a subject to take responsibility rather than one to tell us he is taking responsibility.  

The unnecessary statement is made further weak by the qualifying "full."

I want the public to know that alcohol was not involved. 

This is an interesting statement.  The statement is that he "wants" the public to know something. 

He does not say "alcohol was not involved", which is passive voice, something that is closely associated contextually with deception or distancing in a mea culpa statement. 

He states what he wants the public to know.  In this sense, it is not a direct lie.  He is stating what he wants.  This is an indicator of a pathological liar who has learned, through incessant repetition, how to parse language to avoid a direct lie.  

"alcohol was not involved" avoids saying, "I did not drink alcohol."

What is the purpose of one arrested for this that he wants the public to know that alcohol was not involved? 

If he mixed alcohol and pain killers, he "wants the public to know" that the alcohol was not "involved" in his driving issues.  He may even believe that he was not impacted by alcohol, yet the passivity tells us to the contrary.  

Alcohol would be a personal failure because he would have had to:

Choose to drink it
Choose which drink to purchase
Purchase the drink
Imbibe the drink
and repeat process.  

Passivity Versus Passive Voice 

This is another "statement analysis" expression where passivity often addresses a few words, rather than a theme.  Passivity is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility.  "Rocks were thrown" is an example of the weakness of passivity. 

However, weakness does not, by itself, give us deception.  If the subject does not know who was responsible for the rock throwing, this passivity is "appropriate weakness." 

Passive voice speaks to a theme developing, and we will use this phrase when the passivity continues.  Here we see his next phase is also passive:

What happened was 

When you see this phrase (an event, or "happening") you should notice what is missing:  human activity. 

This is a subtle form of passive voice that seeks to portray the active subject as a victim of events outside of his control.  "What happened was" has no human responsibility within it.  

an unexpected reaction to prescribed medications. 

We now have "prescription medications" introduced to the topic, with "mixing" having no human responsibility.  

This is to say that the "reaction" was "not expected."  

Note:  to whom was this reaction unexpected?

In the sentence, there is no human involved.  

Next, he moves to the rule of the negative, telling us what he did not "realize" rather than "what happened":  

I didn’t realize the mix of medications had affected me so strongly. 

Here is, perhaps, where the deception about alcohol has entered.  He realized that it had affected him (the mix) but he did not realize how "strongly" the effect was. 

This is to tell us of his awareness, howbeit, elevated through the negative. 

Note also that in his mind is the element of time passing.  This is by the word "realize", which means a thought processing action that is not instantaneously.  We may consider time passing as important to him as he recognized an increase in effect ("strongly" also indicates passage of time) and, perhaps, why alcohol entered his statement. 

This is "what happened" to the subject.  He didn't do anything: things happened to him.  

Next, note the incongruence of such:  

I expect more from myself, too. 

What could he possibly expect "more" of?  This was "unexpected" and, in this sense, the fault of the doctors.  

I will do everything in my power to ensure this never happens again,” 

Will he become a chemist to make sure medications do not have this unexpected effect?

Consider the passive voice and now the entrance of "I" with first "expectation" (thought)  and then future action, to be incongruent with what mediations did to him.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.  

Tiger Woods continues to deceive.  He wants "the public" to know that alcohol was not involved but avoids saying, "I did not drink alcohol", which, given the charges, is unnecessary.  The necessity of arrest comes from being impaired, no matter what caused the impairment. But this is not the area of which I am indicating deception:  it is in the statement, 

"I take full responsibility"  that deception is indicated.  

He does not take responsibility for his actions, but is a victim of chemical reaction. 

This statement is consistent with the police source who reported him as "arrogant", as this statement shows not only low self-awareness, but contempt for his audience.  

He inadvertently insults those who have maintained sobriety from alcohol, while shifting blame to the chemical reaction.  

He takes responsibility for nothing.  What does "nothing" look like?  In his statement, "nothing" is when medications have an unexpected reaction.  

The use of "unexpected", while likely to be seen as an excuse, is very important. The word "unexpected" belies that the subject had an expectation.  This is the language of "narrative building" or, as police say, "story telling." 

With "realization" and "strongly" , the subject tells us of his own intention to become intoxicated.  

Drug and alcohol counselors will, intuitively, recognize that the subject is not at all ready for treatment, even if depression is the underling cause of self medicating.  The subject has "no choice" as there is no central responsibility which means that there is no hope of change of behavioral patterns.  

The subject is a pathological liar, desensitized from a lifetime of lying, he holds, as do all liars,  the world audience in contempt.  He does not recognize how this statement makes him look even as he may seek to re enter professional golf or regain lost endorsement deals.  

This is how lives may spin out of control.  

Personal responsibility, in any situation, allows for hope as it yields control back to the subject who may not put effort into effecting change.  

This is why "victim status" is so personally dangerous and has ruined lives.  Politicians benefit by votes and by appearing "compassionate" but in context, the substance abuse professionals know that as long as it is not their client's fault, there is little hope for change.  

For training in Statement Analysis, please visit TRAINING

Monday, May 29, 2017

Elements Within Statement Analysis

                       A truthful sentence used to deceive.  
"When I went into the garage it was then that I did see those guys hovering over that bloody mess,  and holding his mouth closed so no one would hear the screaming." 

In analyzing this sentence, the analyst is confronted with a number of issues that need to be addressed appropriately and in order.  

One of the things an analyst is asked, upon completion of analysis within a single sentence is to look for an element within it. 

We view two important elements within Statement Analysis:

Time and Space, which we label space being "Location" within a sentence.  In identifying an element, a natural priority emerges that tells us what is on the mind of the subject. 

In the above sentence, as a reader, you should be impressed by, and even emotionally involved in that someone is being held against his will, and something is being done to him which is creating effusion of blood and screams, and the need to muffle the screams.  

You should be thinking of torture. 

But that is not what the subject is thinking about.  The subject is concerned about something else.   

Look again at the statement for the answer:  

"When I went into the garage it was then that I did see those guys hovering over that bloody mess,  and holding his mouth closed so no one would hear the screaming." 

Here, the element of his answer is time.  This produces that which tells us that the essence of time is more important to him than the bloody torture described.  It does not mean that time is more important than the violence, it means that in his verbalized perception of reality, time is more important to him. 

In fact, time is not only important, but it is "sensitive" due to the repetition within his statement:

"When I went into the garage it was then that I did see those guys hovering over that bloody mess,  and holding his mouth closed so no one would hear the screaming." 

Here, the element, and not a specific word, is repeated, making the element of time sensitive to the subject. 

Note next:

"When I went into the garage it was then that I did see those guys hovering over that bloody mess,  and holding his mouth closed so no one would hear the screaming." 

Not only did the subject not begin his statement with the pronoun "I", psychologically putting himself right into it, he also showed a willingness to tell the truth about something in a specific way.  Here we have more S/A language that may cross some grammar loving people. 

He did not say "I saw", which is a strong or "perfect" past tense, but "I did see", which is not a "past tense" statement in the above sense.  It is "imperfect" (in the language of the analyst) because it used emphasis, highlighting the need to emphasize.  This is often found in deceptive people who are, in this area, being unusually truthful.  

This emphasis ("I did see") which is  technically past tense, was produced against the brain's naturally occurring "law of economy" where the shortest wording is used.  "I saw" would be the strong commitment.  Here we have another example of "statement analysis rules and realities" that has to borrow from the world of proper grammar.  

This person is worried about timing, not about the victim.  

When a person is deceptive, there is not likely found a pause within his  thinking where the subject stops and thinks through specific wording: 

'I need to keep this information concealed but I have to give them enough for them to believe me but I can't stop myself from thinking about what I saw 20 minutes before this.  If I tell them that they are going to arrest me and charge me as an accessory to the crime, so I will give them the later information so that they don't recognize that I was there earlier when this guy was beaten so he would tell us where the drugs were hidden.'

The "hidden thought" above gives away the element of importance to the subject. 

The element of importance to the subject is Time.  By identifying an element, we may find a deceptive priority, even within a truthful account.  

The deceiver's brain works in great rapidity to conceal, yet, by just a few small additional words and the analyst's awareness to consider elements (here, sensitivity indicator is repetition even though it is not the same word repeated) and where a person begins a statement, to lead the analyst to the truth.  

Here, the priority indicated by where the subject began his statement is not only to remove himself, but to prioritize the element of time.  

Questions, Questions and More Questions 

We ask questions.  Questions where answers are sought in the statement itself, and if not, in the interview/interrogation.  

In other statements, we find that location (Space) becomes an element where we naturally ask "Where else was this subject?" just as we asked in the above statement, "At what other time did he witness...?" 

To enroll in training for deception detection, please visit

Hyatt Analysis Services   

Commitment to excellence, you may enroll in training at your home, or host a seminar for your department or company.  

Advanced Training available only after successful completion of our Complete Statement Analysis Course.  This course may be completed at your home, and it comes with 12 months of e support so that appropriate application is made by those who not only memorize principle, but understand it.  We encourage repetition and the avoidance of haste.  The dulled listening habits can be reversed in time and success comes from dedicating self to becoming proficient at detecting deception.  

From here, the analyst moves to content analysis and detailed profiling, including anonymous author identification.  

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Statement Analysis Practice Through Movie Dialogue

With formal training, the instruction of principle,  including the understanding and application, upon completion, is just the beginning. 

Complete Statement Analysis is an at-home course in which the new analyst learns the general principles of deception detection as well as the application. 

Successful completion of the course is where it all begins. 

It is here that the basic tools are now in the hands of the analyst who must now learn how to use them.  

With enrollment in our course, we provide 12 months of e-support, which provides feedback and guidance in the course of study. 

With enrollment, we also provide one free of charge access to live, on-line team training held at Go To 

Here they meet other analysts, instructors, investigators, journalists, writers, and experts from a wide variety of fields and work together for a common goal.  

Team analysis now allows the analyst exposure to a wide swatch of human nature within the world of crime.  It is, as to say, monthly access to the incessantly unexpected.  I caution new analysts that this training is "addicting", which they soon learn why.  They are involved in a supported team environment of the most detailed dissection of statements, literally entering into the language of criminal suspects where intellects range greatly. 

Most will sign up for at least a year of training, and find that at the end of a year, detecting deception is no longer challenging.  They run at or near 100% accuracy.  

With this, they are ready to move into the area of profiling where the words of a subject reveal to them the subject's background, experiences in life, motive that drives him, and most interestingly, the subject's personality traits. 

Sometimes there work is compared to a known psychological evaluation diagnosis.  

With formal training, the overall obsession with language becomes routine, and at a certain point, is no longer "shut off."

Recently, I was asked to provide some suggested movies to watch.  


Analysts find that, often in their second year, that they are incessantly analyzing conversations, including television.  

I urge them to expand their internal data base of language through reading and analyzing to not only further practice but to learn more about human nature.  

I recommend the writings of John Calvin on human nature, as well as Shakespeare.  The popular series, "No Fear Shakespeare" is a great way to expose oneself to his understanding of human nature as they are small paperbacks of some of the most brilliant writing the world has ever known.  On the left side is the original text and the right side (page) has modern English.  After a few chapters, the reader leaves off the need for translations.  

The Brothers Karamazov and the short stories are recommended.  Here your heart is ripped out by the writing of tragedy and then handed back to you.  

Interrogations:  The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945, by Richard Overy I double up on because here you can see the transcripts of answers of men of extreme intellect in justifying evil.  Even in second language, there is a great deal to mine. It is sobering.  

Natan Sharansky's "Fear No Evil" Gulag experience and coping is amazing.  This speaks to interrogation and interview resistance and the will of man.  

There are so many others (I will give another list soon) but the key is to seek out reading that will cause you to be exposed to human nature well evidenced linguistically. 

Now here is some fun to have while practicing the art of listening. 

Classic Movies

Modern movies rely upon gratuitous violence and nudity, which caused a precipitous drop in scripted dialogue.  To practice the art of listening, I challenge you to step back a few years and embrace movies where the scripts are written from books and the actors had to rely upon skills rather than special effects.  

Silent movies are fascinating because of the facial expression communication of which body language analysts enjoy, but here we are focusing on dialogue. 

Clever dialogue is stimulating to listen to, including turning away from the face and just listening and analyzing in practice.  These writers, even when scripting deception, use deception most often appropriately.  

Entertainment Value:   In these old classics, you're likely to find much emotion elation and joyful conclusions, and not as likely to watch an overweight woman fall down and pass gas, as you are today.  

Rapid Fire Dialogue 

This form of dialogue takes concentration (remember that?) to follow.  Here are just a few recommendations:   

1940's "Pride and Prejudice" is my favorite insult movie.  The lines move quickly and the insults delivered in rapid fire writing. Edna May Oliver is priceless. 

 Some others I recommend:

"The Philadelphia Story" explores human nature (greed, ambition, selfishness, redemption, etc)  as does the insulting 

" His Girl Friday" which, if you blink, you'll miss an insult.  

"The Thin Man" with William Powell and Myrna Loy...I love the entire series. 

My favorite period is the naughty "pre code" period, where one may "balance our account" to describe infidelity. (1930's "The Divorcee" and "Gold Diggers of 1933" represent the serious to the comedic.)  1931's "Dracula" is frightening and a few lines are spine chilling but it is mostly the face of Bela Lugosi making evil banal that is most effective. 

"Three on a Match" shows drug addiction and the hallowed vanity of chasing riches.  It is tough to watch. 

Helen Twelvetrees can reduce you to tears in "Millie" when she says with the world's saddest eyes, hangs up the phone and says  "that was my mother.  She says for you to be good to me" to her new husband on their wedding night , who, as you might guess, was not good to her. 

Twisted but sadly accurate, "Of Human Bondage" accurately portrays why men do such self destructive things over obsession with a woman.  

It was from the early 30's that Hollywood's addition of musical scores reached its peak in 1939, where even the "b" movies shine today.  

The all female cast of "The Women" starring Norma Shearer unashamedly explores how women think and feel.  

1942's "Casablanca" is not a feel good movie, but when the French citizens unite in song against the Nazi occupiers, its hard to not feel inspiration.  

"Topper" is fun while one of my favorite Joan Blondell movies is where she deals with the topic of a conscience that begins to bother her, more and more, under the tutelage of a professor, in:

"Good Girls Go to Paris"  She was comedic genius.  

Human nature does not change, and the relations between men and women in these movies leads modern critics who write reviews to issue caveats and politically correct apologies.  

"Gone With the Wind" 

"My Man Godfrey" 

"Stagecoach" shows the brutality and tenderness of human nature. 

"Grand Hotel" 

"Little Lord Fauntleroy" and "Captains Courageous"

"Jezebel" will show what selfishness looks like in a shocking way, as a moment of emotional satisfaction is exchanged for a life.  

"Imitation of Life" 

"Manhatten Melodrama" addresses dignity, principle and friendship. 

"The Charge of the Light Brigade" deals with vengeance and rage. 

Although later, "The Searchers" shows the irrational side of hatred. 

"Wuthering Heights" gives insight into humiliation's impact upon human nature. 

1938's "Holiday" had the depression era's view that those with wealth just had to be parents talked about waiting on line to see a movie that was sought as a form of relief during the Great Depression.  

To see Greta Garbo laugh, after all those silent movies, is worth the price of rental, but when you hear her ask, "Must you flirt?", you'll be glad you landed:  "Ninotchka."  

"Goodbye Mr. Chips", "The White Cliffs of Dover" and Greer Garson in "Mrs. Miniver" are touching with strong dialogue.  

Unashamed love stories, war accounts, and deeply moving films including Mae Clark's performance with "Waterloo Bridge" which deals with  prostitution is tragic and heartbreaking.  

"The Divorce of Lady X" is silly  fun, and you'll have to turn up the volume a tad to hear Lawrence Oliver's banter with Merle Oberon, while ignoring her eternally adorable face expressions copied from UK's Jesse Matthews ("There Goes the Bride", another  must see). 

"The Awful Truth" tells the truth about male insecurity and jealousies.  

"Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington" is an initial glimpse into corruption.  

"Dinner at Eight" 

"The Bishop's Wife" is warm hearted, though the early movies of Loretta Young are special.  

Many of the movies from the 30's from the UK are dialog first movies and enjoyable while being useful for our purposes of practicing following dialog.  I'm convinced that after a polite greeting from a Brit in 1935, that I have just been complimented while I know I've been horribly insulted. 

There is far too many to list but the key is learning to listen even while enjoying movies and the writing must be intelligent, clever, and with an understanding of human nature.  Although I love movies that elicit tears and will watch anything with Shirley Temple, Fred Astaire (Ginger Rogers is just fine without him), Myrna Loy, Edna May Oliver, and so many from the "Golden Era" of Hollywood, seek out clever dialogue.  

It's useful and it's enjoyable.  

If you have some classic movies you love and can recommend those with snappy dialogue, please add to the comments section.  

I've left off my love of musicals as they are not dialogue first, but it is hard not to smile and follow Maurice Chevalier "Love Me Tonight", (if you like Disney's Beauty and the Beast", you'll recognize where the opening scene came from) and "The Merry Widow" --he's very funny. "Top Hat", "Shall We Dance" "42nd Street" 

"Naughty Marietta" with Jeannette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy is good enough to get the Mp3s.  

and one of my favorites movies that did not even make the "B" list, but remains fun to laugh at:    Alice White:  Naughty Flirt can be found on You Tube.  She was an inspiration for Mel Blanc in his "Bugs Bunny" tails, as you might guess from the picture. 

Make your recommendations in the comments section...and enjoy!