Politicians are always generous to students of deception detection.
"I am against elder abuse!"
To be "against" something in a public debate, there is the presupposed position of one being "for" elder abuse.
This is different than raising public awareness of what elders may experience in nursing homes and VA hospitals.
In Statement Analysis, we recognize that information that is "unnecessary" becomes elevated in importance and can reach a point of "highest sensitivity cited" by an analyst.
Unnecessary Information Lesson
"I went to the library."
This sentence, on its form, is reliable. If the subject is lying, the subject is now moving into a category that investigators and analysts need to explore for habitual or pathological lying.
"I left my house and went to the library."
The additional words, "I left my house and" are not only additional (the law of economy is the short cut of language) but they are "unnecessary" to add.
One cannot get to the library unless one first leaves the location.
It indicates that the subject's brain is pausing or halting at the location of departure.
It indicates to us that the subject is withholding information. To withhold information, the subject must be thinking about it but not stating it.
This is often due to rushing, time constraints, traffic, and so on. On average (context dependent) it can be as much as 70% due to this train of thought, which would include being late for something, gathering personal belongings together rushing, and so on.
The context often dictates to us if it is time related or if it is critically withheld information that the subject just cannot get his mind away from.
When something critical to the account (greater context) took place, we often find it right at this point in the statement.
1. Is it unnecessary?
2. Does it reverse the law of economy of language? This means that it took more effort, raising its importance to the subject.
3. Does the context indicate rushing, traffic, time constraint, etc? If not, it is going to prove to be important for exploration.
When we find this point of high sensitivity close in the statement with another high sensitivity issue, we are often seeing the solving of a case.
A murdered child was found in the home. The single best question to ask is the open ended, non interpretive:
Q. What happened?
A. "I left the house because I had to go to work that day."
We will always point our question at unnecessary wording. Here, we have the point of departure ("left) and the preempting of a question of "why did you leave the house?" answered. When one works full time, it is not likely that an investigator would think to ask, "Why did you leave?" as it is unnecessary.
Yet, we find that when asked "what happened?" the subject's immediate answer turns him into a suspect. We know he is withholding information of the time period prior to leaving the house. He thinks to himself, "this investigator is going to ask me why I left the house, so I better tell him first, otherwise I will look guilty..."
Guilty subjects teach us how to ask questions.
Elder Abuse and Virtue Signaling
During the #metoo phase of Hollywood, it became evident to the untrained that those who were rushing to make unnecessary moral declarations were projecting guilt. If you followed it, you saw some that made public declarations against sexual abuse of women.
This is unnecessary information.
No one is carrying signs outside of studios calling for more sexual abuse, or more elder abuse.
Unnecessary information is only unnecessary to us; not to the subject.
The subject has as reason to protest "against" that which warrants no protest.
This is the essence of "virtue signaling" which is a modern phrase that is what is called "the Sermon" in analysis.
In human nature, we posses a desire to be "right" morally. This is universal with rare exception (sociopathic, etc). It is when this need becomes acute that we often find projected guilt. Even those with an ideology that is committed to ending life for some (Nazism, Islam) will frame it is "moral" language, such as "for the good of mankind."
If I continued, week after week, writing, speaking, texting, tweeting against elderly abuse, at some point, someone is going to look into my background to learn, "Did he work at a facility that housed the elderly?" and on to, "Did he abuse an elderly person?" and/or "Did he ignore the abuse by those under him?" and so on.
Sermonizing or Virtue Signaling is "unnecessary" (our reference point for it) and when it appears, it should be explored.
In Statement Analysis, we recognize this as "sermonizing" which is similar to the "Good Guy" principle: it often reveals the polar opposite.
It is common, for example, to find on the intake of substance abuse treatment for mothers who put their babies through withdrawal to find them writing, "I am a great mother" in an open statement. Billie Jean Dunn, accused of not only murdering her 13 year old daughter, Hailey, but of child pornography, neglect, and burning a home-made tattoo in the shoulder of her son, with acid stolen from a hospital, made this declaration.
In employment analysis, we find that those with a history of theft will, in deed, "lecture" or "sermonize" that stealing is wrong as if there is a contrary position to take. This is unnecessary information that we explore. It is routinely confirmed in background checks or exploration that the subject stole.
"I think those who steal from their employers are biting the hand that feeds them and should be fired, charged, imprisoned and..." in an open statement should alert us to the sensitive connection with theft.
What caused the sensitivity?
Has this person been a victim of theft?
Has this person stolen?
Unnecessary and Projective
"Islam is the religion of peace" is only needed to be labeled as such when the presence of violence is indicated. There are many passages in the Koran, defenders point out, that address peace and mercy. Although an individual can do anything, Hinduism is not called "the religion of peace" as there is no need to; it does not prescribe violence in its ideology. If Islam did not prescribe violence and coercion, nor did it have a history of such, there would exist no need for the label, "the religion of peace." It is only necessary due to violence. The devaluation of women, especially given "divine status" as "one half the testimonial value of the male" leads naturally to sexual violence and child abuse. This strikes at the heart of woman. The "grooming gang" exploitation of thousands of victims is a natural outworking of ideology.
The analysis of the Andrew McCabe statement suggests that the subject is not a habitual liar. It is likely, according to the language, that he sees himself as a victim of pressure he could not withstand. His language should be compared to former Director James Comey's language, including from his tweets.
They are very different.
Comey shows a distinct need to show "virtue" or higher morals (sermonizing) regularly which is "unnecessary" unless it is necessary for him. The lack of self awareness continued in his tweeting even though the obvious was highlighted by the public's reaction. Comey's "weasels and liars" insult was powerful, yet it gave insight into one who lied publicly and who may have projected his opinion of having to navigate gingerly around the Clintons' scandals in both the illegal server and in the "Clinton Cash" which generated millions of dollars and gave advantage to donators. The allegations made within this book and documentary have yet to be fully investigated and have not, to date, been repudiated. I urge its viewing, looking specifically for "need to persuade" versus reporting allegations, to help discernment.
Those who lie call for truth, when the call for truth should not be necessary.
Those who exploit, call for condemnation of exploitation when no such condemnation is necessary.
McCabe's language suggests his discomfort with deception rather than a personality trait of deception. He was deceptive and the FBI recommended his termination. Although more sample is needed, I believe he developed, slowly, into this position where each step took him further and further from his personal upbringing. For example, his wife received more than $600,000 from a Clinton ally while he was investigating Clinton.
The 'What to do?' Complexity
If he recuses himself, he could incur the wrath of the Director, the President and his future boss, Hillary Clinton, expected to win the presidency.
If he insists his wife, running for office, give back the donation (conflict of interest, excessive amount), would she?
Would she oppose him? If so, what would that do to his marriage?
Would she be able to pay for commercials on TV and campaign without this, perhaps the largest donation ever?
If he and/or she felt that losing the election would harm the nation, is this the "greater good" ethical dilemma?
What might refunding or refusing the donation due to his own career after the election which media reported was all but done?
Did McCabe, indeed, change the notes of Peter Strzok when he reported that a "computer glitch" deleted them, but then they reappeared shortly after? What will this do to his credibility in claiming to take notes during the times he met with Trump? This, too, will then go back to the "non memorialized" interview with Clinton.
It goes round and round.
President Trump and Rep. Adam Schiff
Two good examples for analysts to study come from President Trump and Rep. Adam Schiff.
Deception is routinely seen in the language of confidentiality. This can be medical (HIPPA), military, social (therapists) and other fields. Neil Armstrong's interview showed he refused to commit to the lunar landing. The passivity, however, may have been due to military mandate of confidentiality, especially given the arms race with the then Soviet Union. It is not enough to say "this is deception" without the greater context.
Negotiation Language is deceptive.
On the back of expensive furniture tags was a series of letters which quickly told the sales person how low he could go in negotiations. One such used "Dutch Boys" as its code, assigning the number to each letter. "D" is 1, "U" is 2 and so on. A blank is zero. B SS would be 6099.
Therefore, if an item was priced at $2800 and the customer wanted to negotiate a better price, and the tag said, "DYHH", the sales person knew he could not go beneath $1955", so he would begin the negotiation well above it. He may say, "I don't think I can go below $2550 for you, but I will check..." which is technically deceptive. It is inherent in the language of negotiation. If you listened to his words, no matter what "fuss" he appeared to be raising, checking with supervisors and records, you heard the weak commitment of "think" which should tell you: he knows he can go lower. In the above sample, if the sales person sold at Dutch Boys price, there was no commission. If he sold below Dutch Boys, it was subtracted from his salary. He needs to know what he is doing in negotiations. Now picture this many times more complicated with myriads of laws, regulations and so much more in New York real estate.
Trump's language should be immediately categorized. The analyst/reader should ask, "Is he negotiating?" If so, presuppose that what he says is not what he wants but posturing. This means almost uninterrupted deception when he seeks something.
We may consider this in light of the insults he poured upon the North Korean dictator. Trump's enemies called him "unstable" and demanded impeachment. This was not likely lost on N Korea's Kim Un's advisors. "Is he unstable enough to actually attack our nuclear facilities?" This was a tactic successfully used by President Reagan decades ago in which the media, calling him a "crazy old man" actually assisted in obtaining his goal. As critics call him "unpredictable", it may be that some do not see the element of negotiation deception in his language. In these contexts (which are many) he is predictable. When a politician says he wants "C", he is thus boxed into this position and will be seen as a failure if he obtains "B." Not so in business negotiations. It remains to be seen if Trump's language will become more politicized over time. I think not, however, due to personalty traits in which negotiation appears to be something he does incessantly.
"My button is bigger than yours, and it works" as a sexual reference however, is not lost on analysis, as his "New York playboy lifestyle" has long been known.
Yet as allegations of a sexual affair prior to taking office arise, we should not import "negotiation deception" into allegation denials. This is now specific, and it is not posturing for a negotiated end. Here, the strength of the denial, itself, is analyzed.
What about multiple allegations?
With Judge Roy Moore, was he using age and sophistication disparity to exploit young girls?
In his case, we were dealing with allegation denial; but multiple allegations clouding the denial. Yet, it was still discernible.
How could we tell the difference when some allegations were true and some were not when he issued a blanket denial of them all?
The answer was found moving "not reliable" to "unreliable" by two elements:
His need to present situations as "normal" told us that they were anything but normal. It is in this "need" that we flag for sensitivity.
But more importantly, the subject guided us to the truth by his sermonizing or "unnecessary moral stances" which told us to the contrary. The cloud of multiple allegations quickly cleared for the analysis as Moore kept up the "virtue signaling" of how "righteous" he was. He projected guilt as virtue such as, "Asking the parents permission..." It covered for his exploitation of young girls.
Unique Opportunity for Analysts
Representative Adam Schiff was rebuffed by President Obama even as he publicly supported Obama. Schiff's language indicates a rare element that actually does indicate "instability" with "stability" in context meaning predictability.
Schiff's language should be studied by analysts and student analysts. He is not restrained by fact, as others are, and although the self motivation becomes evident, his language indicates a lowered concern for accusations of he himself being caught as a liar. Even those with sociopathic like traits feel the stress of direct lying because they can stand accused of lying and wish to avoid it.
Schiff is very low in this regard. This is likely what caused President Obama to attempt to silence and distance himself from Schiff's vocal support. It is not that he is above being publicly humiliated, it is that he appears to be less impacted while speaking with direct lying within deception. It can still cause halts and sensitivity indictors, but with less frequency and intensity than we normally see.
Schiff's language puts him in the 10% category of direct lying. For a small example of this form of lying, see Richard Blumenthal's defense of his fabrication of being in Viet Nam. This includes his attack on any and everyone who 'dare' question him. Then, put this personality type in a prosecutor's role and the question of justice becomes intensified.
Schiff is a fascinating character which helps analysts go beyond the "rules" and into the exceptions. Principles are not established on exceptions, but exceptions exist and need to be understood. Schiff provides for this in abundance. Humiliation is a powerful trigger, and it was years later that Schiff retaliated against Obama publicly.
This is not to say that Schiff will always use outright lying as his form of deception. He will, as humans do, rely upon withholding information in deception. It is the occasional use that must be studied.
When information is unnecessary, it is very important.
When unnecessary information is in the form of a sermon, lecture or "virtue signaling", it is often an indicator of guilt.
Mothers investigated for child abuse and found to have been abusive, will often "lecture" or "virtue signal" to other mothers in a manner that demeans or insults them.
The impact upon the audience is to compete and not be "left behind" as less than moral. It is provocative.
In our analysis, it is useful in all forms.
The unnecessary sermonizing, in an open statement, is often an indicator of guilt that is projected outward.
It is essential for investigating theft as well as screening for theft in Employment Analysis.
In 2001, the Dept. of Justice stated that 40% of those who stole from their company, planned to do so during the hiring process.
17 years later, we look back at this statistic and realize:
It does not include fraudulent complaints of injury, harassment, or discrimination, which are not only widely popular today, but in terms of exploitation, very successful.
Celebrity statements are invaluable to those who seek to learn Employment Analysis as well as insight into human nature.