Saturday, April 28, 2018

Tom Brokaw's Statement Analyzed

Linda Vester accused Tom Brokaw of sexually assaulting and harassing her.  The harassment is evident in the context:  power exploitation.

Analysis of both statements is found here. 

 The conclusion is that Linda is telling the truth about what happened.  This is consistent with the accused refusing to deny it, instead, denying only a "romantic" motive.  People who sexually assault others do not have an emotional motive of romance; they exploit.  

Brokaw has now responded with a statement.  We should expect him to say or write, "I did not assault Linda" and/or, "I did not sexually harass Linda."

A small portion of psycho-lingisitc profiling analysis of Linda shows:

1.  She is likely a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
2.  She suffers from some self loathing and from low self esteem, and anxiety, likely from childhood.
3.  The impact, in spite of likely professional intervention, continues.  
4.  The context of the threat to her career increased the suffering she felt. 


Some do not understand the nature of "intrusion" especially upon an adult victim of childhood sexual abuse.  It is, as evident in her language, far more than putting his hands on her without her consent.  It is to bring up unprocessed pain and create a deep sense of vulnerability and one being most unsafe.  This is where depression and anxiety erode at a highly successful professional.  

I think most men reading her statement would consider a "punch in the nose" if Tom Brokaw had done this to their wives, daughters, sisters, etc.  

As both statements are read and analyzed, "Linguistic Human Empathy" is a Principe in analysis in which we:

a.  believe the subject 
b.  seek to enter into the subject's verbalized perception of reality 
c.  allow the statement to guide us, even if outside information conflicts. 
d.  accept out of sequence information knowing that once the analysis is complete, it will no longer be out of sequence; it will make sense. 
e.  force the subject to talk us out of our position. 

For example, in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the analyst must enter the statement with the following presupposition:

Madeleine is kidnapped, held by unknown parties, and that Gerry and Kate are attempting to recover her. They are presupposed to be loving parents left bereft of their daughter; not sociopaths.  

The analyst's presupposition is this and the result was that the McCanns literally talked the way out of this position.  


Will Tom Brokaw issue a reliable denial?

Is Tom Brokaw a predator?

Let this answer come from his own words; not of his alleged accuser.  Let him guide you. 


It is 4:00 am on the first day of my new life as an accused predator in the universe of American journalism. I was ambushed and then perp walked across the pages of The Washington Post and Variety as an avatar of male misogyny, taken to the guillotine and stripped of any honor and achievement I had earned in more than a half century of journalism and citizenship.
I am angry, hurt and unmoored from what I thought would be the final passage of my life and career, a mix of written and broadcast journalism, philanthropy and participation in environmental and social causes that have always given extra meaning to my life.
Instead I am facing a long list of grievances from a former colleague who left NBC News angry that she had failed in her pursuit of stardom. She has unleashed a torrent of unsubstantiated criticism and attacks on me more than twenty years after I opened the door for her and a new job at Fox news.
Linda Vester was given the run of the Washington Post and Variety to vent her grievances, to complain that I tickled her without permission (you read that right), that I invaded her hotel room, accepted an invitation to her apartment under false pretenses and in general was given a free hand to try to destroy all that I have achieved with my family, my NBC career, my writing and my citizenship.
My family and friends are stunned and supportive. My NBC colleagues are bewildered that Vester, who had limited success at NBC News, a modest career at Fox and a reputation as a colleague who had trouble with the truth, was suddenly the keeper of the flame of journalistic integrity.
Her big charge: that on two occasions more than 20 years ago I made inappropriate and uninvited appearances in her apartment and in a hotel room. As an eager beginner, Vester, like others in that category, was eager for advice and camaraderie with senior colleagues. She often sought me out for informal meetings, including the one she describes in her New York hotel room. I should not have gone but I emphatically did not verbally and physically attack her and suggest an affair in language right out of pulp fiction.
She was coy, not frightened, filled with office gossip, including a recent rumor of an affair. As that discussion advanced she often reminded me she was a Catholic and that she was uncomfortable with my presence. So I left, 23 years later, to be stunned by her melodramatic description of the meeting. A year or so later, as I passed through London after covering end of WWII ceremonies in Moscow, I saw her in the office, chatted and agreed to a drink later. (If NY was so traumatic, why a reunion?)  She knew a bar but by that late hour it was closed so she suggested her nearby apartment (not, “Well, no where to go. See you tomorrow").
Again, her hospitality was straight forward [sic] with lots of pride in her reporting in the Congo and more questions about NY opportunities.
As I remember, she was at one end of a sofa, I was at the other. It was late and I had been up for 24 hours. As I got up to leave I may have leaned over for a perfunctory goodnight kiss, but my memory is that it happened at the door – on the cheek. No clenching her neck. That move she so vividly describes is NOT WHO I AM. Not in high school, college or thereafter. 
She came to NY and had mixed success on the overnight news. As I remember her try out [sic] on TODAY did not go well. Her contract was not renewed.
Here is a part of her story she somehow left out. I think I saw her in the hallways and asked how it was going. She was interested in cable start up [sic] and I said I didn’t think that was going anywhere. What about Fox, which was just building up? She was interested and followed me to my office where, while she listened in, I called Roger Ailes. He said, “send her over.”
She got the job. I never heard from her or saw her again. I was aware that she became a big fan of Ailes, often praising his considerable broadcasting instincts in public. But when he got in trouble on sexual matters, not a peep from this woman who now describes her self [sic] as the keeper of the flame for Me:Too.
I am not a perfect person. I’ve made mistakes, personally and professionally. But as I write this at dawn on the morning after a drive by [sic] shooting by Vester, the Washington Post and Variety, I am stunned by the free ride given a woman with a grudge against NBC News, no distinctive credentials or issue passions while at FOX. 
As a private citizen who married a wealthy man, she has been active in social causes but she came to Me:Too late, portraying herself as a den mother. In the intervening years since we met on those two occasions, she had no reason to worry I could affect her career.
Some of her relatives by marriage are very close friends. She couldn’t pick up the phone and say, “I’d like to talk. I have issues from those two meetings 20 years ago?” Instead she became a character assassin. Strip away all of the hyperbole and what has she achieved? What was her goal? Hard to believe it wasn’t much more Look At Me than Me:Too.
I deeply resent the pain and anger she inflicted on my wife, daughters and granddaughters - all women of considerable success and passion about women’s rights which they personify in their daily lives and professions. We’ll go on as a family that pursues social justice in medical emergency rooms, corporate offices, social therapy, African women’s empowerment and journalism. And no one woman’s assault can take that away.
I am proud of who I am as a husband, father, grandfather, journalist and citizen. Vester, the Washington Post and Variety cannot diminish that. But in this one woman piece of sensational claims they are trying.
Tom Brokaw
Analysis

The first thing noticed is the length.  It is 1,043 words.  This is significant because the psychological wall of truth needs a single sentence to stand upon its own merit.  "I did not sexually assault Linda" would suffice. 

It is also significant to analysts who wish to know four things about him:

1.  His Background
2.  His Experiences 
3.  His Motive and Priorities in writing
4.  His dominant Personality Traits 

Length of specific sentences speaks to emotion. Length of the entire statement speaks to its need to persuade.  


It is 4:00 am on the first day of my new life as an accused predator in the universe of American journalism. 
1.  He does not begin with the pronoun "I" which alerts the analyst to the possibility of less than reliable information.  Psychologically, he is distancing himself by not beginning with the pronoun "I" in the statement.
2.  Time:  He begins with "time" and one should consider the specific time is very early.  Is this an attempt to elicit emotion or pity from the reader suggestive of the lack of sleep?  If so, the analyst should now consider shifting of emotion in bringing himself into view as a victim.
In his "denial", he put the burden of responsibility of what happened upon the victim. 
3. Note he uses the word "predator" and "journalist" without rebuke.  We do not expect him to accept something vile such as sexually assaulting a woman. 
4.  Since he labels himself an accused predator, it is the perfect place for him to issue the denial.
Remember the context:  it is not only vile, it is dominant in our culture.  We saw this, months ago, in unnecessary virtue signaling by guilt parties. 

I was ambushed and then perp walked across the pages of The Washington Post and Variety as an avatar of male misogyny, taken to the guillotine and stripped of any honor and achievement I had earned in more than a half century of journalism and citizenship.
He is accused of something he should simply deny.  Instead, his victim status grows to include the death penalty. 
If you did not feel sorry for him being up at 4am, please feel sorry for him being led to the guillotine. 
Note he also embeds his successes. 
It is regrettable that a life time of success and accomplishment can be forgotten by a single transgression. Yet, rather than deny the accusation, he allows for it and attempt to elicit pity for himself using exaggerated or "hyperbolic" language. 
This is akin to Lance Armstrong boasting how many times he did not fail a drug test, or a criminal rightfully pointing out what bank he did not rob. 
It is "unnecessary information" that is used to persuade. 
If you did not feel sorry for him regarding sleeplessness, loss of reputation and execution, he now uses another technique:  his age. 
I am angry, hurt and unmoored from what I thought would be the final passage of my life and career, a mix of written and broadcast journalism, philanthropy and participation in environmental and social causes that have always given extra meaning to my life.
He is going to die.  Instead of denying the sexual assault, he reminded his readers of this fact: he is statistically closer to death than you, the reader, due to advanced age. 
It is his need to use this tangent and manipulate his readers emotions that we note; not that he is old and is going to die. 
Time
Truth is not impacted by time.  If you break eggs and scramble them, they are scrambled eggs today, yesterday, 2 centuries ago, and 2 centuries from now.  If a culture decides to call them "pancakes" rather than "scrambled eggs", culture cannot change truth:  they are still eggs.  
By invoking this, he could be thinking of cultural acceptance of both sexual harassment and sexual assault. Think:  Harvey Weinstein.  When he was being uncovered, he said he would dedicate his life to destroying the NRA, a club of law abiding citizens who carry firearms.  
When President Trump made an inappropriate joke, the reaction that was most extreme came from Weinstein enablers.  The projection of guilt came in their responses.  
Will Brokaw insist that what he did was acceptable, culturally, in the 90's, during the era of Monica Lewinsky and the outing of "family values conservatives" who were, themselves, transgressors?
Playing "the card" is a tangent. Whatever the card may be, the need for the tangent is noted, but the need for the tangent in light of a missing denial heightens the sensitivity. 

Instead I am facing a long list of grievances from a former colleague who left NBC News angry that she had failed in her pursuit of stardom.
This is very likely to impact the victim; no matter what professional intervention says, and the subject likely has acute knowledge of this. 
Why?
The subject introduced us to "predator" in his priority opening lines. 
This went against the presupposition brought into the analysis. He introduced "predation" and it is now on the mind of the reader and the analysts. 
We look, therefore for affirmation of "predator", denial of it, or that the words of the statement will not address it. 
We let him guide us. 
Predators
Predators prey upon victims of prey.  
Predators can spot poor self esteem a mile away.  In years of interviews, this became evident, but more so, in confessions, predators have "confided" in me why they chose the victim they did. They know.  They read body language and see weakness and they exploit it.  This is the opposite of the historical definition of "masculinity."  
"Masculinity" is the sacrifice of strength.  It is to help weakness, not to exploit it. 
Brokaw now reveals, with first his victim blaming but now his insult, the sensitivity we read about in the initial statement by Linda Vester. 
It was a public statement, but I still am conflicted about posting the analysis.  It is done, however, in "block analysis"; not in any detail. 
He now revisits that weakness and he is extracting revenge upon her for coming clean about that which has impacted her ever since. 
Adult victims of childhood sexual abuse carry these scars no matter what is promised them by snake oil salesmen.  Professionals can mitigate the suffering, but it is a life sentence.  The guillotine he references is the end; victims suffer life sentences. 
When an adult victim of childhood sexual abuse has it "revisited" by a predator, it does not take rape to accomplish suffering. The subject not only put his hands on her, but he pressured her in the most intimate part of life:  her sexuality. 
He knew what he was doing, as seen in the follow up contacts as well as in "rubbing her nose" in it here. 
He ridicules her. 
Santa Claus
Many years ago, I received a report of sexual abuse by a bus driver against a man with adult autism. 
His company said, " I know you do not want to know any external details but listen, this is a good guy.  He is almost 90 years old, is a retired doctor and volunteers his time driving. Peter, he looks like and plays Santa Claus!"
It is true:  many adults with adult autism and/or mental retardation misinterpret seatbelt adjustments as sexual abuse. 
It is true:  adults with AA and/or MR are many times more likely to be sexually abused then the general population. 
I went into the investigation presupposing truth when obtaining the statement from the accused.  The victim was non verbal.  
I called Santa. 
I urge investigators to always set up their own appointments. This is where the interview begins.
The company said he is unaware of the allegations. 
I called and when I introduced myself to him, he first said, "why are you calling?" but before I could answer, he said:
"Let me tell you something.  I am a normal male."
I knew. 
We call this "the Normal Factor" in analysis.  Those who have considered themselves or by others as "not normal" use this phrase. 
He went from there:
"These looney tunes, what do they know!" 
He ridiculed the victim.  
The victim had now gone more than 2 weeks without a shower and refuses to leave his home.  He was in the system for more than a decade and had made no accusations.  
The need to ridicule the victim is another red flag. 
Tom Brokaw knows how to aim his venom on a personal and an exploitative manner. 
I now believe Tom Brokaw's words when he labels himself a predator without denial. 
He wants his audience to continue to feel sorrow, not for her, but for him: 

 She has unleashed a torrent of unsubstantiated criticism and attacks on me more than twenty years after I opened the door for her and a new job at Fox news.
a.  unsubstantiated criticism avoids using the word "allegation" as well as "false accusation."  It was not "criticism" it was and is an accusation.  This is need to minimize. 
b. "open the door" is an unnecessary phrase associated with sexual abuse. 
c.  "Fox News" is his version of Weinstein's NRA.  He began with mentioning left wing news sources that he was a victim of, and here he mentions "Fox News"; the right wing news source. Yet, he does not associate them as writing about him. This is for his readers to believe him because "we are on the same side" against "Fox News."
This is to play the "politics card."  We note the need to play it. 
Linda Vester was given the run of the Washington Post and Variety to vent her grievances, to complain that I tickled her without permission (you read that right), 
"you read that write" is in parenthesis.  This is to indicate "private conversation" with his audience.  It is to be noted that it came after "Fox News" (right wing) and Washington Post and Variety (left wing) in contrast. 
Note "I tickled her without permission" is embedded.  He admits this. 
I know how most husbands would respond to him at this point, yet he is old, near death at the guillotine, having lost his status and now is known as a predator. 
The private conversation is to minimize via ridicule.  The need to ridicule to the "left wing" audience is to:
a. inflame against conservatives 
b.  assume left wing readers will join in the ridicule.
This is an example of his contempt for left wing readers.  
Please note:  It is insight into what Linda Vester faced. 
that I invaded her hotel room, 
His choice of wording affirms his status as a knowledgable predator. He entered against her will, no matter how polite she was, and no matter how much he wishes ridicule it. 
He embeds his own confession. 
Here he goes back to motive in his denial. He told us that he did not want a romantic relationship with her when he attempted to get her into sex.  This is truthful. 
accepted an invitation to her apartment under false pretenses and in general was given a free hand to try to destroy all that I have achieved with my family, my NBC career, my writing and my citizenship.
With being accused of putting your hands on someone without their permission, would you use the phrase, "a free hand"?
Note he now invokes more politics:  illegal immigration and citizenship status that is front and center for the nation. 
He is a sophisticated predator in spite of his age. 

My family and friends are stunned and supportive. 
This is an unnecessary element of reaction by others.  Instead, tell us that you did not do it and the accuser is lying. 
It is not the opinion of others, including me, that matters.  It is his own words. 

My NBC colleagues are bewildered that Vester, who had limited success at NBC News, a modest career at Fox and a reputation as a colleague who had trouble with the truth, was suddenly the keeper of the flame of journalistic integrity.

He is incapable of outright stating that she lied. Instead, he cruelly goes after her career and implicates her as one having "trouble" with the truth.  This is projection.  
The psychological wall of truth:
"I did not touch her.  She is a liar." 
Instead, he uses sophisticated comparison: 
Her big charge: that on two occasions more than 20 years ago I made inappropriate and uninvited appearances in her apartment and in a hotel room. 
the "scrambled eggs" are not really scrambled eggs because they were made 20 years ago (time). 
He now continues to attack her personally, but in doing so, he is affirming what he did, but only to say "she wanted me to" for the purposes of "career advancement."
This is to affirm his own guilt in exploitation by career advancement: 
As an eager beginner, Vester, like others in that category, was eager for advice and camaraderie with senior colleagues. She often sought me out for informal meetings, including the one she describes in her New York hotel room. 
Without direct lying, which could impeach him, he only attacks her motive as "eager" , repeating this word in the same sentence. One should consider how "eager" the subject was: this is his choice of word, and his choice of repeating it in the same sentence. This is an example of 
"leakage" in analysis. 

I should not have gone but I emphatically did not verbally and physically attack her and suggest an affair in language right out of pulp fiction.

This is an important statement. 
The priority is "I should not have gone" which is to acknowledge his action. 
Next, "I did not verbally and physically attack her" is:
a. qualified unnecessarily with "emphatically"
b.  is to change the allegation from sexual assault to "attack" (think, "eager" entering his language as a "predator")
c. He did not do it with the language of pulp fiction.  I believe him. This essay alone tells me he is far above cheesy pulp fiction.  He denies the type of language he used. He is insulted by the quotes; not about the assault. He is "better" speaking than she classified. 
This is akin to a leaked memo. 
Rather than focus on the content of the memo, the guilty party attempts to make all focus upon the leaker in the "shoot the messenger so we don't hear the message" fashion.
He now seeks to turn former workers against her. He also intimates sexuality by her. This is common in predatory language.  Not all are crude enough to say it plainly, "she was asking for it" (including child molesters) but will use short descriptions of the same. She was "coy": 

She was coy, not frightened, filled with office gossip, including a recent rumor of an affair. 
He then recalls her statement: 
As that discussion advanced she often reminded me she was a Catholic and that she was uncomfortable with my presence. 

So I left, 23 years later, to be stunned by her melodramatic description of the meeting. 
We note the missing information here.  
Objection:  he did not "leave" here, but was "left with being stunned..."
No, follow his language:
"She was uncomfortable with my presence so I left"
Here analysts know he is withholding information at the time of his departure. Rather than say, "I went home" (the brain moving forward), he is stuck at the point of departure. This is missing information being deliberately withheld by him, at this specific point in time.
Recall his line of "The Greatest Generation"?  Here he invokes not only self importance, but to emotionally manipulate patriots.  He is revealing his own status of self importance where she should be denying the accusation. 
A year or so later, as I passed through London after covering end of WWII ceremonies in Moscow, I saw her in the office, chatted and agreed to a drink later. (If NY was so traumatic, why a reunion?)  
Please note "agreed to a drink later" is in passive voice. 
This is to conceal the identity and responsibly of the one who initiated the meeting to drink. 
Note "agreed" is used when disagreement was present. 
He is deceptively withholding who pressed the argument for the meeting. 

She knew a bar but by that late hour it was closed so she suggested her nearby apartment (not, “Well, no where to go. See you tomorrow").
Victim blaming continues but the concern is that victim blaming is taking place in the absence of a reliable denial. 
Again, her hospitality was straight forward [sic] with lots of pride in her reporting in the Congo and more questions about NY opportunities.

He does not say that she sought to have sex with him to advance her career.  Instead, he continues to portray her as ambitious without making the specific allegation. 
This is someone not only comfortable with deception, but one who is efficient at manipulative deception and exploitation.
As I remember, she was at one end of a sofa, I was at the other. It was late and I had been up for 24 hours. 
Sleeplessness revisited. 

As I got up to leave I may have leaned over for a perfunctory goodnight kiss, but my memory is that it happened at the door – on the cheek. No clenching her neck. 
He invoked, unnecessarily, "remember" in his language. He can only tell us what he remembers.  He then offers what "may" have happened.
He remembers the exact seating pattern but not kissing her. 
Note "door" is reflective of her language here. 
Note "No clenching of her neck" is to evict the pronoun "I" from his sentence. 
He does not tell us who did not clench her neck. 
Given the context of his statement, the ejection of the pronoun "I" is indicative of deception.  He, psychologically, removes himself from the denial of this action. 
"I did not clench her neck" would be reliable on its structure. 
Gnostic View
"there's a good person inside of me"
The "Gnostic View" of self is found in deceptive people when they have done something wrong.  It is not "who" they are, which is to say "someone else inside me did it."
It is perception.  It is me saying, "A tall, young thin man is inside of me trying to get out."  
It is consistently used in guilty statements as one seeks to remove themselves from guilt. It is to deny the character, but not the action: 
That move she so vividly describes is NOT WHO I AM. Not in high school, college or thereafter. 
The wording indicates guilt, but the caps of emphasis show self awareness. It is not his image, but he did it. 
She came to NY and had mixed success on the overnight news. As I remember her try out [sic] on TODAY did not go well. Her contract was not renewed.
Here is a part of her story she somehow left out. I think I saw her in the hallways and asked how it was going. She was interested in cable start up [sic] and I said I didn’t think that was going anywhere. What about Fox, which was just building up? She was interested and followed me to my office where, while she listened in, I called Roger Ailes. He said, “send her over.”
She got the job. I never heard from her or saw her again. I was aware that she became a big fan of Ailes, often praising his considerable broadcasting instincts in public. But when he got in trouble on sexual matters, not a peep from this woman who now describes her self [sic] as the keeper of the flame for Me:Too.
I am not a perfect person. I’ve made mistakes, personally and professionally. But as I write this at dawn on the morning after a drive by [sic] shooting by Vester, the Washington Post and Variety, I am stunned by the free ride given a woman with a grudge against NBC News, no distinctive credentials or issue passions while at FOX. 
As a private citizen who married a wealthy man, she has been active in social causes but she came to Me:Too late, portraying herself as a den mother. In the intervening years since we met on those two occasions, she had no reason to worry I could affect her career.
Some of her relatives by marriage are very close friends. 
It could not have happened due to degrees of familiar separation. This is, in a sense, contempt for his audience. He continues to blame her for not telling the predator that he did not like being prey: 
She couldn’t pick up the phone and say, “I’d like to talk. I have issues from those two meetings 20 years ago?” Instead she became a character assassin. Strip away all of the hyperbole and what has she achieved? What was her goal? Hard to believe it wasn’t much more Look At Me than Me:Too.
He now plays the "Gender Card" invoking women's rights.  This is another Harvey Weinstein duplication: 
I deeply resent the pain and anger she inflicted on my wife, daughters and granddaughters - all women of considerable success 
"considerable" success is more ridicule of the victim. He is both skilled and without human empathy towards his victim. 
and passion about women’s rights which they personify in their daily lives and professions. 
Misogyny is frightening.  It is not disagreeing with Hilary, it is from childhood and it is danger to women.  He is an exploiter who uses this card as well. 
Recall the context:  all he needed to do is give one sentence.  We did not need his list of accomplishments or his dividing of Americans, but...
our subject did. 
Here is more Messiah Complex.  Not only is this in the language of Richard Blumenthal who told veterans he was in Viet Nam when he wasn't, but in the language of Jill McCabe who accepted $750,000 dollars from Hillary while her husband was investigating her. Jill invoked saving people from the lack of medical insurance.
Recall the two men in Starbucks.  They were going to have a "real" meeting about a "real" plan that would also save the world. 
These are all indicators of guilt via the need to justify.  It is in the language of thieves and exploiters routinely. 
We’ll go on as a family that pursues social justice in medical emergency rooms, corporate offices, social therapy, African women’s empowerment and journalism. And no one woman’s assault can take that away.
I am proud of who I am as a husband, father, grandfather, journalist and citizen. Vester, the Washington Post and Variety cannot diminish that. 
The "Messianic complex" (see analysis of Richard Blumenthal) where one believes to control others is evident. 

But in this one woman piece of sensational claims they are trying.

it is interesting that she is not a "person" but a "woman" in context. We don't have sex with a "person" but a gender specific 
woman.  In context of denial, in a non sexual setting, we should expect "person" might be used. 
Tom Brokaw

Analysis Conclusion:
The subject is deceptive and is a predator.  He embeds his confession of his behavior, while ridiculing his victim. 
He has a need to deceive and likely has more victims he is concerned about coming out. He is manipulative and he knows how to spot prey, how to exploit them, and how to issue vengeance against them.  This is consistent with his statement that showed us that he did not intend to have an emotional or romantic relationship with her; he sought to use her for self gratification, both sexually and in conquest.  
He is a predator who holds his victim and readers in contempt.  He wishes to divide his audience by politics and gender rather than deny the action. 
He embeds his confession and is acutely aware of the damage his words intend.  His contempt is acute. 
Tom Brokaw has other victims.  He can spot insecurity and low self esteem handily, and even now, at an advanced age, knows how to be cruel in his exploitation. 

One does not suddenly graduate to this level of cruelty without a history just as one does not suddenly become an expert in deception. 
It takes successful practice. 

There is no psychological wall of truth; nor human empathy. He holds left and right leaning readers equally in contempt, just as he does with his victim. 
Analysts:  this is a statement that should be used for deep detailed psycho-linguistic profiling and then compared to public statements by the subject. 
For training in Deception Detection, go to Hyatt Analysis Services. 

80 comments:

General P. Malaise said...

"She has unleashed a torrent of unsubstantiated criticism and attacks on me ........

........after I opened the door for her."

where did "torrent" come from? a water reference? "I opened the door".

hopefully he posts more statements. I am curious as to what his childhood was like. where and when did he become a predator? with power and wealth? or was it before that. the foundations were laid in childhood.

Zeke said...

Wow! Victim status is over the top. I bet some who signed that letter of support will rethink it.

Peter Hyatt said...

“Torrent” should have been included. I’ll add. Thank you

Anonymous said...

"I made inappropriate and uninvited appearances in her apartment and in a hotel room."

Is this embeded?

sonjay said...

She has unleashed a torrent of unsubstantiated criticism and attacks on me

Even here, he can't bring himself to say that her "criticism and attacks" are untrue -- only that they're "unsubstantiated." Accusations and allegations can be "unsubstantiated" and also be true.

Peter Hyatt said...

Zeke, I agree.

Peter Hyatt said...

Yes

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,
The one sentence that stands out most to me is:

"And no one woman’s assault can take that away."

I guess he's trying to refer to her "assault" on him, but it sure sounds to me like he's admitting she was assaulted.

Very ambiguous, at the very least.

Mike Dammann said...

"As that discussion advanced she often reminded me she was a Catholic and that she was uncomfortable with my presence"
is a keypoint in this statement. As "she often reminded" him, there is lots of missing information as to what triggered such reminder after she was the one who invited him.

Anonymous said...

He is indignant. Like Cosby & Clinton, he
thought of himself as beyond reproach, due to his successful career. After all, she was beneath him, and he helped her get a job.

A genuine apology - especially given that e didn't force the matter and left at her request - and this would have gone away.
Jo

Bobcat said...

Anon @ 3:33, I agree. It sounds like an admission.

What jumped out at me was the "move" of clenching a neck. I suspect it's a "move" he's done since high school, as other women could attest.

Lucia D said...

His opening sentence "It was four AM on the first day of my new life..." reeks of story telling. Brokaw is a talented writer, who knows how to draw an audience in. I know it made me want to keep on reading.

It is also undeniable he is a formidable foe, in a war of words. Instead of seeking merely to deny her allegations, he seeks to destroy her. His need to mention her as someone who married a wealthy man is a (not so) subtle put down, and I think says something about his true opinion of women. I could go on and on about his statement. Analyzing the words of someone so intelligent, so smooth and practiced in the use of language, is really interesting!

Ladela said...

The General said:

" I am curious as to what his childhood was like. where and when did he become a predator?"


Since he included high school in his non-refutation of being a predator, I would think at least since then.

lynda said...

Wow..Tom just hung himself. There's very few women that could read that whole "statment" and not see the need to destroy, intimidate, bully, ruin this woman. If Tom would have released a statement with a reliable denial and thats IT..this would have gone away. It would have become a he said, she said, with Brokaw receiving the most sympathy I expect. Now, he has gone postal on this and it is so over the top that it is obvious, even without statement analysis, she is telling the truth. I see the embedded confession in his statement.

I just spent the last month sitting at a trial for the man that kidnapped and murdered my nephew's fiancee. He did not testify. At sentencing, he received the death penalty, he asked to address the court and was allowed to do so. He turned in his seat and faced us. He then went on for close to 1 hour confessing. Starting from when he took her, how he took her, what was done to her for several days, how he buried her, etc. but saying it was "some other guy". He was just relaying to us what he thought "the other guy" had done. He was innocent, the mysterious "unknown, other guy" did it. The need to give an embedded confession must be great, even for psychopaths.

Anonymous said...

Peter wrote: "Predators prey upon victims of prey."

Peter, this is so very true.

A real man will build a woman up, not tear her down.

I have such visceral loathing bordering on actual nauseu when I look back at the predators who preyed on me, such mentally crippled and twisted creatures, so tragically ridiculous.

I don't think the explanation for why someone turns into a predator can be found in their childhood. Predators are simply vile and evil opportunists. I think that that is an explanation psychology came up with to try to explain the horrific. The explanation is not true, because they have proven that most sexual predators were not molested...the ones who say that they were molested retract the statement once they are hooked up to a lie detector test. The explanation for predatorial behavior is called "evil" and until there is an explanation for it, we will not understand it.
Some people are just horrible people, and I don't know why people find that so hard to believe. Do people try to explain kindness? Or try to trace it back to some childhood event that caused a person to turn "kind"? Just the same way, some people area born evil or simply make the choice to become evil. Youre not going to find a satisfactory explanation for it by looking at their childhood.

Anonymous said...

Someone like Ted Bundy I do believe was sexually abused...I don't believe Bundy was a psychopath. I think Bundy was someone who carried deep shame about himself, not just because of his illegitimacy, but also because I believe he was sexually abused, probably his evil grandfather, and I believe the shame was profound, and he escaped into a bizarre fantasy world. I believe he had some degree of multiple personality disorder. I do believe that these very extreme examples of predators are under the grasp of something so dark that they struggle to control it, or have only partial identitiy control. Most predators, however, make a conscious choice and know exactly what they are doing.

Anonymous said...

probably by the evil grandfather it should say

Anonymous said...

I have read and thought a lot about Ted Bundy, and I believe that he was not a psychopath, he had intact empathy, but I believe that he did have dissociative personality disorder...he did have a separate personality that would sometimes overtake him, and I do believe he was partially aware of that personality's actions. Without a doubt, I believe Bundy was sexually abused. Most predators are just run of the mill evil pieces of shit.

Anonymous said...

"And no one woman’s assault can take that away."

Is he thinking of others he has asaulted and it would take more than "one"

Anonymous said...

That voice Cosby talked in
WAs super creepy
And that was his real voice
He even talked about the murder of his son, Ennis,
In that Dr Cosby voice...

I remember when I was a kid
Probably 4 or 5
Seeing the Pudding Pop commercials with Cosby,
And thinking "There is something wrong with him.
He's a phony, he's a creep, he's a perv"

It's weird how I was able to see that as a little kid.
But I could.

I feel like adults just see what they want to see
Like "Oh it's just some adorable man
Talking in a cutesy voice with a group of
Kids about Pudding Pops"
As a very young child, I could see that he was deviant
Just from that Pudding Pop Commercial.

People see what they want to see
And project "normalcy" and "benign" intentions
Where there are none.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"And no one woman’s assault can take that away."

Is he thinking of others he has asaulted and it would take more than "one"
_______
That's exactly what I thought when I read that line; there will be more.
-Kitt

General P. Malaise said...

"this one woman piece of sensational claims"

"And no one woman’s assault can take that away"

"one woman" is very sensitive. he seems to need to keep it to one woman. I will not be surprised if we see more women come forward.

I mentioned in another comment about his upbringing. that is because our personalities are formed at a very young age and while there are always exceptions it is the foundation.

Alex said...

I don't think I have read a statement with so much victim blaming and bashing.

He seems to only be able to stop the victim blaming long enough to elevate himself to deity status.

Victim blaming

Virtue signaling

Hyperbole

Story telling

Tangents

Embedded confession

Did he miss any SA principles?

Alex

Anonymous said...

I do think they are working on something together.

He calls her language "pulp fiction" yet refers to her attack as a drive by shooting.

She married a wealthy man with relatives that are close friends of his.

She's the den mother of Me:Too now that he's old and dying;she didn't on-board when the other man that had power over her fell into the same sexual harassment trap.

He and his wealthy family are involved in many social causes, one of which is medical emergencies.....Okay, wth? They empower
African-American women.

Obviously they don't give a rip about white women?

She did use her family's faith as a basis for rejecting him: Catholic. She followed soon afterwards with him being 30 years her senior. She wasn't interested in an old geiser. He referred to the fact he'd been up 24 hours to elude to the fact her probably couldn't get it up if her were to restrain and attack her.

Nope. Unless someone with more serious charges step up, this looks like collusion in the first degree.

Anonymous said...

Correction: He and his rich relatives empower AFRICAN women; not African-American women.

(Reread and noticed by mistake)

Anonymous said...

And she promotes her successes in the Congo.

Hey Jude said...

"It is 4:00 am on the first day of my new life as an accused predator in the universe of American journalism."

As opposed to an unaccused predator, which was his old life in the universe of American journalism.

Cat said...

lynda, I agree.

"The need to ridicule the victim is another red flag. "
This is most clear. Is this always a clear cut indicator Peter? Is there any need to denigrate one's victim if they were not your victim?

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Hey Jude said...
"It is 4:00 am

lol 4 am must be when predators are most active in their natural environment. .

Anonymous said...

Whacha ya'all think? Is the white house correspondents dinner a MAJOR NATIONAL DISGRACE or what.

lynda said...

Cat said...
lynda, I agree.

"The need to ridicule the victim is another red flag. "
This is most clear. Is this always a clear cut indicator Peter? Is there any need to denigrate one's victim if they were not your victim?

------------

Good Question! I know that other men will ridicule this woman, and rationalize away the assault that he committed. Is that because they too, are predators? Misogynists? Guils that they've done the same? False sense of brotherhood? Why DO men do that?

lynda said...

Anonymous said...
I have read and thought a lot about Ted Bundy, and I believe that he was not a psychopath, he had intact empathy, but I believe that he did have dissociative personality disorder...he did have a separate personality that would sometimes overtake him, and I do believe he was partially aware of that personality's actions. Without a doubt, I believe Bundy was sexually abused. Most predators are just run of the mill evil pieces of shit.

April 29, 2018 at 12:21 AM

I remember an interview with him that I watched when he was about to be executed all those years ago. He said that he always looked to other people to "see" what he was supposed to be "feeling". He would look to others for cues. If people laughed, he would laugh too, if people were sad, he acted sad. That's definitely sociopathic and now they are using the term socipath/psychopath interchangeably.

LC said...

Tom Brokaw's lengthy email statement seems below his impeccable journalistic standards.
I am aghast that, with his impressive credentials, his rebuttal attempts to denigrate the accuser, rather than deny his own actions, and simply stand on his character and Public reputation.
His statement of response seems to be a protest without a reliable denial. Surely, his career achievements may have protected him from unwanted negative publicity, and left him unscathed - until now.
However, blaming and shaming the victim should be beneath the protocol of his remarks, and does not excuse any past actions that may damage his self-proclaimed pristine reputation.

Anonymous said...

To anon at 12:15: yes. Truly sick.

Alex said...

Tom Brokaw did miss something, a reliable denial.

Alex

Anonymous said...

WHCD is a tradition that should be discontinued. Its a spectacle of American degenerency and broadcast to the world. Sad, very sad.

Anonymous said...

Re: Bundy, he dod have strange affect at times, such as when he acted jovial when talking to a psych regarding the fact he was up against the death penalty. Do I believe he needed to look at others for cues as to whether to feel happy or sad? No. He BSed psychiatrists/ investigators. Look how he BSed Dr Dobson. Trauma can numb a person too. He clearly had feelings & expressed normal sadness & happiness...if anything, he was quite sensitive.

Anonymous said...

White House correspondents dinner has
become an expensive display of masochism for
the pleasure of the perpetrators.
Yup, national disgrace, spectacle of
stupidity as well as degeneracy,

Trump needs to fire this nasty dinner.

Anonymous said...

Also, I believe Bundy would not defend himself effectively in court bc he wanted to be "martyred"...it is impossible to know if he actually perpetrated any of the murders or whether he was, on some level, enjoying the attention he got for beimg (perhaps falsely) blamed for the crimes. If anything, he was narcissistic, not psychopath.

Anonymous said...

Comic Relief: These responses are hilarious

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHHb0punt4

Anonymous said...

Maybe.....remember what happened after seth meyers insulted an attendee a few years ago? POTUS now!!!! Maybe...Sara POTUS a few years from now!!!!!

Anonymous said...

THEY SHOULDNT BE THERE TO INSULT & ATTACK ANYONE. NOT THE CLINTONS, OBAMA, BUSH OR TRUMP OR HUCKABEE.

Anonymous said...

All liberals think they are so smart. They like to use the word "laughable", they use "catch-phrases", they irk me, they make my blood boil, they love abortion, woman enslavement, pretentious bullshit bologna sandwiches, marrying arrogant men with no body hair, bothering me, triggering me, troubling me with their unmasculine husbands and fiendish masculine femininity, they love abortion, breast cancer, flabby thighs, hairless men, doublespeak, they annoy me,,, how can a woman mate with one, become excited over these blabbering airhead soft pretentious unintelligent slithery "males"?
They become "offended". They demand apologies. They suckle at the teat of Eminem the rapper and expect will you also suckle from this retardo rappers teats?

Anonymous said...

If I wear a pussy hat does that make me part of your group? Does that make me a feminist? If I march carrying abortion signs wearing a vagina hat, if I don't shave my armpits, if I use words like "laughable"? If I feign offense? If I punch myself in the face over my white privilege? If I say that race is a construct? If I say that gender is a construct, call me "ze" I identify as a male who is a bio female, will it anger you if I am a si-female?

A (Stupid) Hell is talking to a liberal said...

If I chop off my hair and draw on thick eyebrows, don't bathe for 3 days, wear a sleeveless shirt, and stomp around will you like me then? If I use words like "preposterous", if I pretend to love cancer patients, if I say that my husband is chest-feeding our aborted baby will you like me then?

Anonymous said...

Regarding Ted Bundy: I NEED AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION: Considering Ted Bundy's suspected pathology (psychopathy) would Ted Bundy do something to help another person that would knowingly put himself at great risk knowing he would get no publicity? In other words, I know he saved a drowning child, but some say that it was for publicity, he would get the praise as a hero. So I am asking, would he do something that would put his life at great risk to help or save another knowing he would get no publicity? Within the context of his personality disorders, would he be capable of that type of self-sacrifice? For example, theoretically, would he be capable of putting his life at great risk to help or save another knowing that noone would know what he had done?
I am asking this question, because once I understand whether or not he would be capable of that, I will understand him, I feel, although many have struggled and failed to understand him.

Anonymous said...

Those on here who know about personality disorders, I need your input on whether Bundy would be capable of such an act. We have already determined his other 2 heroic acts did receive publicity and he received praise as a hero, and during the heroic act, he knew he would receive praise. I need to know if he is capable within his personality disorders of putting himself at great risk to help or save someone knowing he would get no praise, knowing that noone would know (besides the individual he helped).

lynda said...

OT

Anon..you're Bundy obsession about understanding him is frightening.

You lost me on the conversation the minute you said he had empathy, and was sensitive. Not to mention your (wrongly accused) crap.

You don't experience empathy while your bashing a woman's skull in, raping, torturing, or tearing out her flesh with your teeth. I mean really, you can't be serious.

Peter Hyatt said...

Please use caution and restraint.

The emotional frustration comes from illogic. We were created with certain elements, including a sense of justice, but also reason.

If 2 plus 2 equals 4, lots of things in life make sense.

If a man wearing a dress is a "woman", there is no reference point from which to draw sense.

The original argument was that mentally ill people deserve respect.

I don't know anyone who believes to the contrary. This makes the original argument fraudulent.

Once the human nature need for reason is removed, frustration is the result.
Some examples:

"Islam is the religion of peace." This unnecessary statement does not need history to analyze it.

A nation chanting "Death to America" is safer if we give them nuclear weapons.

Blaming innocent law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.

Blaming (and banning) inanimate objects.

If we spend more money than we have, we can help the poor.

when up is done, evil is good, and so on, it is against human nature.

Consider this: the less government is involved in our lives, the more we get along. Government in the social lives of its citizens divides and divides again, until we have the recipe for violence:

faux moral supremacy and illogic.

It does not end well.


John mcgowan said...

"Islam is the religion of peace." This unnecessary statement does not need history to analyze it."

It's interesting that now other "relegion" feels the need to express this or NTP.

It reminds me of the "normal" principle. Contrary to what is stated, doesn't need to be expressed.

Anonymous said...

Lynda, I just want an answer to my question regarding if Bundy would be capable of helping or saving someone if it meant putting his life at risk and if he knew he would get no credit ot publicity for it? I dont know what is "frightening" about asking that. I am just genuinely interested in knowing whether someone with his personality disorders, etc would be capable of that.

Habundia said...

"What you said is "that you need the anwser to understand him"

That does sound a little obsessive and frightning.
Why would you NEED anwsers to understand him?
He's death. There is no need to understand him.

When someone saves the life of another its never known in front that it will become news, so how would he know if saving a life would end up being noticed or not? Even saving a life can be because of selfish thinking and not because one cares about the saved one. If the motive is "getting credit", even if that isn't what is gotten after the rescue....... which probably will cause disappointment, and anger, which could let to murder, then saving a person could easily fit in the mind of a psychopath, for "getting credit", and being seen as "normale".

Anonymous said...

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/21/doing-good-selfless/

Anonymous said...

Habundia, Again, my question has not been answered. Rather, you are saying "well he may have thought he would get credit, etc.?"

What is so difficult about answering the question "would he have been capable of putting his life at risk to save someone KNOWING he would get no credit/recognition/praise etc?"

You can say its messed up that I want to understand him, but you have no idea why I want to understand him. You dont know everything, so dont judge. I have my reasons.

Anonymous said...

@338, that is a non sequitur and does not address the dynamics of my question....,My question is would he have been capable of putting his life at great risk knowing he would get no credit?

Habundia said...

I didn't say 'he may have thought he would get credit'
I said that one doesn't know if they get credit for saving someone, one could only want to get it (credit) and if not gotten feel defeaded, anger, humiliated or other negatieve emotions by not being regognized (given credit)......but one cant know if one will get credit before the act has done (save a life).....its only after the fact they will know and sometimes it takes years before credit is gotten. That's what i said in anwsering your question.

Anonymous said...

Im asking you to entertain the hypothetical premise: Would Bundy put his life at great risk to save someone KNOWING he would get NO CREDIT/PUBLICITY/PRAISE? Please just entertain that notion as a hypothetical scenario whether you think it is possible for that type of situation to exist or not, I am asking HYPOTHETICALLY would Bundy with his personality disorders etc br capable of putting his life at great risk KNOWING there would NO recognition, no praise, nothing, that noone would ever know? What is your opinion: With his pathology etc would he be capable of that?
(This is a hypothetical situation)

Anonymous said...

Yes, of course it's possible! People are not robots or mathematical formulas. Psychological tendencies are just that, tendencies, generalizations to which there are exceptions and anomalies. Contrary to "popular opinion", people are not all good or all evil; we are complex. Bundy got thrills from "being in control". Saving lives, ending lives...control over life.

Yes, it's possible.

Anonymous said...

Please, Anonymous, choose a name. And maybe find an all-about-Bundy blog to get your satisfaction.

Anonymous said...

You wrote "Yes, of course, he'd be capable of doing that". So you are saying that even with all his nalevolence, lack of empathy etc, its a no-brainer that yes of course he's risk his life to save someone with no chance of praise etc. Is that not a noble action, the ultimate in placing another above one's self? How would he be capable of that if he was "as close to being the devil as anyone ever has been", the most cold-hearted son of bitch ever, someone who "lived to kill". I think many "normal" people would not be capable of doing that. I know many people, especially evil
people, who WOULD NOT risk their life for another--their self-love & selfishness & cowardice is far too great. I cant say with certainty I would risk my life for someone else. So how is it a no-brainer as you are saying that "yes, of course he would".?

Anonymous said...

Anon, yes people are complex to a point. But abusers dont change. Their behavior can be predicted for decades. People are not THAT complex once they are set into their ways.
Most serial killers do not risk their life for another selflessly. People are not all good or all evil, true, but psychopaths & abusers operate from a pervasive pattern of manipulation--they are internally corrupt--they are more evil than good--they do not wake up on certain days and become "sincere, giving, selfless people for the day "just because"(they may pretend to be giving as a manipulation). I do not think serial killers would risk their life to save someone, and, if they did, I would think it would be a profound & stunning anomaly.

Anonymous said...

http://m.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/11/top-10-acts-of-kindness-by-notorious-serial-killers-3062674.html

rob said...

He didn't rape her, beat her up, get her fired from her job. She allowed contact over and over, maybe to advance her career.
Men flirt with women, they give it a try, women also do it. They put it out there to see if they get a bite. You shut them down once, firmly, they don't waste their time next time.
Even if he did make an advance on her, what the heck? Ruin his rep and his old age life?
If I tried to ruin everyone who made a pass at me in the past, OR they did the same to me, they'd be a load of crap piled up.
Get a life, move on. Making a pass on someone is not a crime.
Just my opinion. Not a fan of the Me:Too movement.

Peter Hyatt said...

Rob, two questions:

1. Are you referring to Tom Brokaw here?

2. If so, if Linda was your wife, what would have happened?

if you're referring to another case, skip question two.

Flirting is not sexual abuse nor harassment. It can be wanted, or it can be unwanted. Unwanted, it can be annoying. Yet it is not until an element of coercion exists.

We use a similar standard with sexual activity between a teacher and student: sophistication exploitation. The context is key.

Putting hands on someone is not flirting: "Tom Brokaw enters through the door and grabs me from behind and proceeds to tickle me up and down my waist."

I know what Tom Brokaw's smile would look like if this was Heather or my daughter.

Also if we are talking about this case, her history magnifies this event and the follow up from both accused and accuser, confirm that he saw her as prey, and read her insecurity perfectly, and persisted with the exploitative context of being...."Tom Brokaw." Putting hands on a woman in this manner is an assault, but if the analysis is correct, the victim's history elevates this far worse than what other women may have experienced. These victims sometimes lack the natural Brain development (age 3 - 4) with a clear understanding of where their body ends and another person's body begins. It becomes evident in adolescence.


An analyst sent me some deeper work on this today and her conclusion is affirmed now as some of the female supporters at NBC are admitting they were forced into it.

Brokaw is a predator and likely has more victims to come forward.

Other analysts have submitted commentary that goes deeper than a blog entry and gives greater insight into Brokaw.

Like you wrote, , everyone has flirted and been flirted with. Even turning the clock back many years, culturally, grabbing a woman from behind like this, would have led to a bloody nose by men I have been friends with, whether now or 30 years ago.

You may be referring to someone else and I've noted some of your comments previously as sober. If you're referring to another case or comment, please ignore.

Peter

lynda said...

This is where the problem comes in...another reporter writes about Brokaw "making a pass" at her back in the '60s. No harm, no foul to her. By her own words, he was not in a position of authority over her, no coercion, but there's a whole article about how he made a pass at her once. The METOO movement should NOT be about women that have had passes made at them by men with NO coercion, no harrassment, no sinister manipulative ways being employed. Cheapens the movement and after reading her story...this was done, in my opinion,for her to get some notoriety and capitalize on him being in the news now, and unfortunately, it probably hurt his wife.

http://thevillager.com/2018/05/01/tom-brokaw-groped-metoo-when-i-was-a-young-reporter/

General P. Malaise said...


"In September 1989, I was hired at NBC News to be groomed as a foreign correspondent."

"There was a culture at NBC News, in my experience, where women who raise questions about misconduct get labeled as troublemakers. It can torpedo your career."

was Linda Vester consciously or unconsciously aware that there was a culture of quid pro quo to get ahead?

Peter Hyatt said...

We routinely see victims and faux victims. Rarely, however, do we get this scenario as close together as we did with Kristina Cohen and A Wynn. The latter wrote "in support" of Cohen and allows the analyst to see the literary using of another's language. Analysis also identifies priority, which suggests motive.

Attention seekers are not limited by boundaries common to others.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Gen

Did you see news that NBC female employees claim they were pressured into signing?

I think your point is spot on.

Peter

Anonymous said...

NBC employees say they were forced to sign letter supporting Tom B

Now 2 more women have come forward making 3 so far

Skeptical said...

Tom Brokaw has a history of offensive behavior. I remember reading an article about him and Bryant Gumbel when they were both at NBC. They were back in Tom Brokaw's home state of South Dakota and it was past midnight. They came by an out-of-the-way restaurant that the owner had closed for the night. They were allegedly drunk and banged on the door and threw a proper tantrum until the owner opened up. Of course they used the old self-important line of "don't you realize who we are" to get him to prepare them something to eat. Evidently he didn't, but he fixed them and their entourage something anyway. So entitled behavior is nothing new for Mr. Brokaw.

Anonymous said...

@959,

Those are very interesting, however no act of kindness on that list includes risking one's life knowing there would be no credit, praise, recognition (one serial got an early release from proson for saving the guard, the others got medals, hailed as a hero, etc). Just saying, none of the examples describe the hypothetical circumstance I am asking about in terms of whether a serial killer would capable of that type of selfless act.

Peter Hyatt said...

Consider studying sociopathy from criminal statements (and results) rather than MSM.

Example:

Trump said Kim Jon un recently "acted honorably" in agreeing to meet.

Kim is acting in self interest, not honor, as his cruelty is documented.

I watched a clip from CNN in which they were "morally offended" that Trump would "call a sociopath an honorable person."

It mattered not that he is publicly negotiating to bring NK to denuclearize which saves lives.
It mattered not that he did not say Kim was honorable.

Looking at sociopathic behavior from the statement (this is true for narcissism, narcissistic like, selfish) will give a different view point. Too often we seek a "checklist" for complexity.

It does not always work well and it is the bane of lazy mindedness.

Sometimes really good people do really bad things and really bad people do really good things.

Our heroes lie and our enemies tell the truth.

The analyst cares for truth; not presentation.

Bullying, shout downs, virtue signaling, faux moral superiority, etc, all fall by the wayside in the light of truth. They do, however, reveal the weakness of the assertions defended by lies, shout downs, etc.

Peter

Anonymous said...

I do understand. I have come to believe that Bundy did do many of the things he was accused of. The language, particularly in his eleventh hour "confessions" is troubling--lack of pronouns (I), other indicatirs of fabrication, but I do believe he was "clever" enough to simply be giving inaccurate/withheld/false info in his confessions while having been the actual killer.
As for why I am asking about would an extremely evil person be capable of doing something truly self-sacrificing for no praise/no self-benefit, I cant get into it, unfortunately, but I do very much appreciate the feedback from intelligent minds.

rob said...

If someone comes up behind me and grabs my butt, and I don't appreciate it, I won't just allow it to happen. I turn around, tell the person off, keep your hands off of me, slap their face if I feel it is necessary. I surely don't go to dinner with them after that, or invite them to my place. If they invite me, I pleasantly say, 'no thanks'. If they persist, I make it clear.
When something like this takes place, unless you are a minor, you should handle it. If you endure it, or pretend it didn't happen for the sake of you career, then that's on you.
And if it happened and you wait 10, 20 years or more to get the nerve up to do something about it, well, after this amount of time, what changed?

Habundia said...

Allthough his behaviour has been rude and disgusting, I don't when exactly the "assault" took place. Unprofessional, childish, and inappropiate at the least, but assault? If that's an assault, then cops would be having even more work to do.......so many man act in this way and think it's okay, but as Rob said, woman do have own responsibility to step up and not give mixed signals, and be clear. Man brains do function differently as womans do.

A (married) man making avances towards other woman, professionally or not is as old as human (mariagge) is. Nothing new about that.

As Lynda said....the me2 movement isn't set up for experiences of this kind.

Good question: what changed!?

Anonymous said...

Rob, I worked at a restaurant where this enormous, somewhat retarded Greek guy used to grab my boobs, even to the point of following me into the freezer when when I went to get items for restocking, shut the door, trapped me, and grabbed my boobs. I told him to stop EVERY TIME AND HE WOULD NOT! He was like 6 foot 4 inches 25o lbs HUGE GUY. I finally just quit the job to get away from him. How dare you compare a guy getting his butt grabbed to a woman being grabbed by a man who is much bigger & stronger?!?! Y

Peter Hyatt said...

Linguistic Human Empathy comes from analyzing many statements. It allows the analyst to see the statement from the perspective of the subject.

The above anonymous post about size differential is to put oneself in the shoes of the smaller, vulnerable subject.

Exposure to statement after statement can bridge the gap, but only if we are willing to learn.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

PS: Anonymous, small men have stood up to bullies from time memorial. Husbands, fathers and brothers have taken on perpetrators who dared put their hands on wives, daughters and sisters.

Putting hands on another person ink the manner Tom Brokaw did, or in the anonymous post above, would likely lead to masculinity at its best: protecting.

Peter

Habundia Awareness said...

"Anonymous said...
Please, Anonymous, choose a name. And maybe find an all-about-Bundy blog to get your satisfaction"
How funny is that......anonymous telling anonymous to choose a name. LOL

If you already are convinced that he would not risk his life because of the kind of person he has been discribed as by others, then why ask?
If it has to be ' entertained as hypothetical premise', then everything is possible. Then he could or couldn't be able.
What I read that Anonymous @9:14 PM wrote......is "Bundy got thrills from "being in control". Saving lives, ending lives...control over life."
Not only "Yes, of course it's possible!"
He didn't say "yes of course he would, he said it's possible. Like anything is possible when you use hypothetical permise.
'Being in control' .......I think that exactly is what drove him. And seen in that way, saving a live as ending a live could be both present. even 'the most cold-hearted son of a bitch' has something good in them.
Assuming all serial killers (psychopaths, sociopaths) are the same and became what they became for the same reasons or in the same way. No human is a like, not even those who have the same personality dissorder, so to assume all serial killers (psychopaths or sociopaths) wouldn't be able to risk their life in saving another, is assuming they act and are all the same.

The only one who seem to have said 'to have saved a toddler from drowning' is Ted Bundy himself to crime author Ann Rule (is what i could find) So did it even happen? Or was it one of his ways to manipulate and pretening to be 'a good guy'? And by telling an author seeking 'credit'.
So if he saved someone without getting direct (immidiate) credit, he could find a way to use it later, so others would get to know about it anyways and give him his credit.
I am not sure how 'true' this fact is, I read he has been 'praised as a hero' yet havn't seen anything that corroborates this happened.
Serial killers don't kill everyone they see.....it's always a specific type or situation in which they kill or make them 'wanna' kill. (specific type of person, gender, hairstyle and things like that) So why not could there be room for saving a toddler who doesn't fitt his 'type to wanna kill'
It certainly will help out in his pretendence to be seen as a 'good' person. Only those who are able to fool many people in making them believe they are 'good hearted' people will be able to keep getting away with murder and 'blend in' and not be seen as what they are.



Nadine Lumley said...

Spanking, shaming and humiliations can destroy boys esp.