Pronouns are powerful. Pronouns are instinctive. Pronouns are "pre thought", in that, we do not pause to consider, "Was I alone, or was I with someone else? Should I use "I" or should I use "we" in this sentence?" We know what to use, without having to think it through. We have been using the pronoun "I" millions of times. When a human does the same thing millions of times, we can trust the accuracy. Pronouns don't lie. They guide lie detection. In business letters, they often begin with the pronoun "we" as employees are addressed. If you see a sudden change to "I", you should take notice of the increase in importance: the author is suddenly psychologically entering the statement; that is, he is committing himself to these words. The topic is increased in importance. A supervisor might send an email: "We recognize your hard work and we compliment you on your dedication. I need your commitment to accuracy. We must produce, as a team..." Did the author get in trouble with his or her superior about accuracy? Whatever it is, the change indicates an "intrusion" of importance. You can spot examples everywhere. Look in the sports' pages when your favorite team has a losing streak and listen what the athletes and the coaches say. Humans love to "crowd source" guilt. "Mom, everyone was doing it" is a response to minimize guilt due to the crowd. The need to psychologically "hide" in a crowd must be corrected during childhood otherwise you'll see it in adulthood. When one is fired from a job and claims, "this is not an attack on me, but it is an attack on all ______" Here, you can fill in the blank. This subject has guilt and is projecting his or her need to hide in a crowd, whether it be "everyone else" or race, or sex, or ethnicity or religion, etc. It is a signal of low personal responsibility and a psychological need to water down guilt by spreading it to all.
Context is Key When we speak of something common or repetitive, we often use the distancing language of the second person, "you." This can be appropriate distancing language dependent upon context. "If you eat too much candy, you're going to get sick" is the universal "you" in place. This is common to all. Therefore, the second person "you" is distancing language which is deemed "appropriate." Repetition Repetition can produce the pronoun "you" in a subject, even when something is not universal nor even common to others, but unique, howbeit, repeated very often. "When you bring up your shoulder, you have power in the swing..." Tiger Woods had practiced his golf swing countless thousands and thousands of times since he was a boy. Few, if any, obtained his level of excellence, yet the repetition produces the pronoun "you" in elite athletes. Here is another context: Missing Child, Baby Ayla, Waterville, Maine Subject: Phoebe DiPietro, paternal grandmother., Missing grandchild, allegedly kidnapped from your home, yet, there is no trace DNA, no awakening of the people there, failed polygraphs and the subject answering "yes or no" questions about hearing a noise that night only to later to have been found: the subject was not in the home that night. It is interesting that in the video as she lies about being home, hearing noise and a party, when she says "no", she closes her eyes and looks down. Regarding the above kidnapping of a child: We do not classify the above experience as common, universal, or even oft repeated for any subject. The subject said: "When you're expecting a call from the Sheriff 's Department about your granddaughter and someone is casing your house..." This is not a universal, common experience, nor has she had her grandchild kidnapped repeatedly. It is not an experience repeated many times. This is an example of distancing language that is produced due to deception. The subject knew her house was not cased and the Sheriff is not going to call her about ransom demands. Linguistic Empathy As we consider context, we can enter (artificially) the language of the subject seeking to even predict what one might say. The change from "you" to "I" is strong and it is personal. Here is an example: "When you think about what needs to be done, the President can just say, 'Hey, I was wrong." This statement is about an error in policy. The subject is indicating a connection and enters into a first person speculation of what might be said. If this happens, we expect the pronoun "I" to be used routinely and... in context. What is the context? If it is an error in policy, or something along this line, we might see this entry of the pronoun "I" in the statement. What if the context is of a more serious nature? What if it is a most sensitive topic? We should consider the possibility of a linguistic projection. The following was reported in media and brought a strong reaction from the public. At the time of President Clinton's impeachment, the argument moved from suborning perjury to "its just sex." This is an argument between something uncommon (seeking to cause another to lie under oath), to something that is very common, particularly among high powered men. The context also includes age, sophistication and authoritative exploitation: The most powerful male in the world, and a young 21 year old female. Although this is not the legal context, it is discussed below. What do you make of the change of pronoun?
TAPPER: I never made light of it at the time, and I never made light of Bill Clinton's ... committing perjury, and I understand why people at the time were upset. I understood it then, but now, having kids, I understand it much more because it's a horrible example because he's setting the example of somebody who uses women for his own personal – We note the use of "never", which although not reliable, is used as there is no specific event contextually dated. We note the explanation as to "why" (hina clause) the subject has a different understanding. He now condemns Bill Clinton for "using women" of which his sentence is finished by another subject, indicating agreement.
TODD: His own personal pleasure. We should consider this very sensitive as "using women for his own pleasure" is considered "unnecessary moralizing language." He is not countering protestors who are advocating for the use of women for their own pleasure. This is often a sign of possible projection, or it is to align oneself to a particular position to appear moral. Consider the #metoo environment as a greater context in which this statement exists .
TAPPER: Pleasure, right. And from Monica Lewinsky's public statements, you sense that she's just now kind of coming to grips with the relevance of her story to the #metoo movement. First note the affirmation of the word "pleasure" with the word "right." please note the subject does not state that he, himself senses, but uses the distancing of "you sense."
TODD: It galls me that the former president hasn't even simply apologized to her for ruining her life. Note the pronoun "me" as the subject is "galled" as they are in agreement, yet may be competing to see which one is the more offended. It goes from being "galled" to mental health by the subject:
TAPPER: It's crazy. It's crazy. The subject "Todd" experienced "gall" and it was to "me" (personal). This subject, "Tapper" says "its" crazy, with repetition. This moves from "affronted, impertinence, insolence, audacity" etc, to illogic ("crazy, crazy") This is a competition to condemn that which is not in need of strengthening. What is wrong is understood, yet we follow their pronouns, even within the competition of who is most offended, who is most moral, who has the most "feelings", etc:
TODD: Her life is never the same. He ruined it; he got to move on. This subject now moves to the destruction of life. What was exploitative, yet legal (consensual) is now elevated, competitively, to ruination of life. How can Tapper top that? What is worse than "He ruined" her life?
TAPPER: Oh yeah, he's a multi-millionaire. The subject introduces money. In the escalation of condemnation of Bill Clinton, Tapper introduced the financial status of the exploiter. The audience as well as analysts, should consider this to be something very important to Tapper. Context: Bill Clinton has lots of money.
TODD: I've never understood, never understood why he couldn't simply apologize to her ... He owes it to her. Note he does not ask Tapper what Bill Clinton's financial status has to do with either his sexual activity, perjury/deception, or lack of apology have to do with money. However, in the competition, even as they seek to outdo each other in moral outrage, there is a unity. He uses the words, "He owes it to her." What produced this sentence? Contextually, it followed "multi millionaire." What comes next is a change of pronoun that should not be missed:
TAPPER:I took advantage of you when you were a child, essentially. Let's note the escalation: 1. Having never made "light of"; that is, thought as less relevant than other topics is in the negative (what he never did) 2. Next, Tapper went to Monica "kind of coming to grips" which is processing information from many years ago, of a consensual relationship. 3. From there, Tapper responded to the "gall" of Todd with "crazy" (illogical, mental health) with repetition 4. Then he went to Bill Clinton's finances 5. As this continued, he now is at pedophilia, with the context of both sex and deception. The analyst should now consider that the allegation or "outrage" is that Monica Lewinsky, in the sexual relationship and subsequence deception, was a "child", which he qualifies as "essentially." This is now the "lesser context"; that is, within his own sentence. Consider the following question: Q. What topic (context) produced the subject's injection of the pronoun "I" in his statement? I took advantage of you when you were a child, essentially. A. The "advantage" of sex/deception of a child, essentially. We did not see linguistic empathy previously, but all condemnation. This word, "child" produced the intrusion of personal language by the subject, using the pronoun "I." This is not expected. This is not the baseline of pattern. As the two subjects jockey for position, competing under the umbrella of agreement, what did the intrusion of "I" and "child" produce from Todd? This should not be missed:
TODD: She cannot live a normal life because of his, whatever you want to call it. Whatever it is. The word "normal" is always flagged in Statement Analysis. When it is used, we often look to the opposite. "You're accusing me of molesting a client? I'm a normal male." When someone uses the word "normal", it is often an indication that either the subject, or someone else, has considered the subject "not normal" at some point in life. Here, "millionaire" followed with "owe" and "child" followed by "normal." Tapper's use of the pronoun "I" is very concerning. He continues to insult the former President:
TAPPER: His crude needs. Tapper used the word "crude" (the context is oral sex) Todd responded to "crude needs" with:
TODD: Yeah, his carnal needs, and he ruined a woman's life. He did not parrot "crude" (competition noted) but used "carnal", which is less insulting regarding the sexual act itself and the President, but then repeated his "highest outrage" with "ruined" here. Please note that it is not "he ruined Monica Lewinsky's life" but "a" and "woman." This is to distance himself from condemnation of oral sex (it is not "crude" but "carnal") and it seeks to generalize Monica into being "a woman", so as to curry the favorable response of all women. Analysis Conclusion: Both show unnecessary sermonizing (or commonly called "virtue signaling") and both seek to, while not offending the other, still outdo the other in offense. Todd has shown "positive linguistic disposition" towards oral sex (by minimizing "crude" to "carnal", which is neutral, while "crude" is unrefined, blunt, etc. It is Jake Tapper's statement where the pronoun "I" intrudes into his sentence, increasing the importance and the commitment to this. The most difficult unanswered question is: Why? This should lead investigators to explore possible child abuse, including child pornography. It may be produced by the extremity of competition, but even so, this is not language we expect, in context of "child" and "sex" in the interview. It is also not found in any other aspect (lesser context). When might something like this be appropriate? Example: investigators who are tasked with analysis of child pornography have short rotations. It is psychologically traumatizing for them. In most child pornography investigations, the determination of the age of the actors is generally limited to those specially trained accompanied by psychological support. Of these, this type of linguistic empathy might be found. If one specializes in child abuse investigations, or an investigator who has many interviews with offenders, could speculate what one might say in this manner, due to the desensitization of having covered many of these (context). Forensic Pediatricians who routinely deal with child abuse cases may, through much repetition and even the interviewing (some do) of pedophiles, this form of linguistic empathy may be evident. It may be that the subject has covered many such cases, which produced this intrusion. Many interviews by him with offenders, for example, could cause the linguistic empathy of the pronoun "I" in a statement. Yet, Monica Lewinsky was not a "child" at the time, and it is to accuse President Clinton of pedophilia in spite of qualifying with the word "essential." It leads to more questions. Did the subject experience sexual relations with a young woman of whom he now considers a "child"? This is remote, but the question that is raised by the sudden intrusion of the pronoun "I" means, psychologically, he is "in" this statement. This is an example of "linguistic commitment" to the specific topic. Could it be only the folly of moral supremacist competition?
There is no linguistic empathy offered until the topic includes the word "child." This is a powerful intrusion that was not part of the other topics. This is a linguistic signal for investigators and/or analysts, that more information is needed. The natural repulsion of this topic (child + sex) would preclude most from using the pronoun "I." As I explored possible causes of it, I remain alarmed. This is the type of statement that often causes investigators to say, "check his computer." He accused President Trump of pedophilia by context. He did so by invoking the powerful pronoun "I" in his statement. When most people are thinking, "What would I say in this situation?", they are entering linguistic empathy via "the expected." Jake Tapper changed the context from young adult to child. This caused him to psychologically enter the statement.