We always note when a number, in any form, is used within a statement.
"First, I want to say that I..." begins with the word "first", which often indicates an increase of logic over emotion in comparison. We will look for what comes "second", if the logic continues.
It doesn't always.
What might derail logic?
The number one cause is emotion. Emotion can be intrusive into our thinking and cloud us. Therefore, we view emotion as a powerful element in analysis. It has the power to change language.
Human Nature is to rush when emotion hits: This is why olde-fashioned letter writing meant, "don't mail this for 24 hours" to see if "cooler heads prevail." This luxury of civility is more challenging with e communication.
"First, I want to say that I..."
Next, notice that the subject is already signaling that emotion may overtake logic with the subtle distancing of what he "wants to say" rather than state logically.
Third, notice that the pronoun "I" is in the sentence, but it comes after an expression of desire. Human nature is complex. How might he say this in a psychologically stronger manner?
"First, I did not steal from my employer.
This is stronger and we should expect now a second logical point. He does not "want to say"; he says it. This is a critical difference dependent upon context.
Each of us has a personal dictionary of subjective words, with specific meaning to us. We learn many of these words in childhood and they are attended by emotions and memories of which not only impact our choice of wording, but makes the speed of transmission immeasurable. We have memories we know are there, but cannot access. Yet, the brain knows.
When President Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", his internal meaning of "sexual relations" was intercourse.
He likely would have passed a polygraph. The polygraph's highest success comes when the examiner uses the subject's own dictionary, allowing him to explain meanings of words prior to the exam.
When one person says "boy", he may be thinking of his 2 year old, while another may be thinking that her "boy" is 21 years old, and in the military overseas, causing a conflicting memory of fear and pride.
We are complex.
This is why Analytical interviewing, even when intuitively used in therapy, sales or an an investigation, the subject has its own comfort level (due to familiarity) with his own words; not with mine.
2. Objective Time
These are universal so that when one says, "it is 4:25PM", no interpretation is needed.
Pronouns are instinctive. They require no pre-thought.
Articles are also primitive: "a man approached me with a gun..." versus,
"the man approached me with the gun" in an open statement, indicating familiarity or repetition in the latter. We sometimes catch crimes of collusion or "fake hate" exploitation by the articles, "a, an, the" in the statement.
We now want to know if he's ever seen the gun before. We ask:
"Have you ever met or seen this man before?"
"Maybe just bumped into him somewhere?"
"Maybe even like a friend of a friend?"
On to the increase of pressure:
"Is it possible that an investigation might show you and the man have crossed paths before in life?"
"Even in an accidental meeting?"
The subject can become unnerved by the knowledge of the interviewer based upon the language used. Many criminals will take upon themselves the "possible" which, once owned, can lead to an admission and a shifting of blame to the other.
Listening is key.
There is a 4th Exception to the subjective dictionary being "personal, subjective, internal and exclusive."
We don't share our internal subjective personal dictionary with anyone except in a singular unique setting: long term close relationship marriage.
This is where a husband and wife literally enter into each others' internal subjective dictionaries and use each others' language.
This is not found in any other relationships, including twins, our children, and siblings who have lived together for many years. They have common language, but it is not the same as entering into the other's personal, subjective, internal dictionary.
This is why husbands and wives can finish each others' sentences, and communicate without words better than all others. They share a deep unification that is experiential, hormonal, and long term. It literally has associative context to words in common with each other. These are mental images, emotions, memories, and even surpassed memories, that are in common. It is remarkable for an analyst to behold and identify.
"I have 100% confidence that the truth will come out."
A percentage can be seen as a qualifier in Statement Analysis.
We need to know: what is the meaning of "100%" to the subject? Does 100% mean complete?
Percentages are also used under the sub-setting of "Need to Persuade."
Need to Persuade can be appropriately or inappropriately used dependent upon context.
In employment analysis, it is both expected and can be appropriate. When the analyst notes it as excessive, this subtle point must be further developed.
For some, "100%" does not mean "complete."
OJ Simpson used "200%" to praise his ex wife, Nicole Brown's body, after he murdered her. This was not only a "need to persuade" but it was also a form of "Ingratiation" to the victim: he could not have killed her because he is complementing her. The excess was "necessary" for him due to guilt. The context for this was both sobering and chilling: he was describing her physical strength; something just put to the test for him in the attack.
It is the language of manipulation born of guilty knowledge of her murder.
Recently, this story came out of the NHL world.
From the NY Post:
The wife of Senators captain Erik Karlsson has taken legal action against the girlfriend of one of his teammates for alleged social media posts wishing death and pain upon their family.
Melinda Karlsson, who wed Erik last August, filed an order of protection last month against Monika Caryk, the longtime girlfriend of winger Mike Hoffman, accusing her of threatening and harassing the couple before and after their unborn son’s death in March, according to the Ottawa Citizen. The peace bond application — which is similar to a restraining order — said Caryk had been using social media to target them since November 2017, the same month the couple announced they were expecting their first child.
Melinda revealed the disturbing details of Caryk’s alleged harassment in a sworn statement to the court.
“Monika Caryk has uttered numerous statements wishing my unborn child dead,” Karlsson said. “She also uttered that she wished I was dead and that someone should ‘take out’ my husband’s legs to ‘end his career.’
“Monika Caryk has posted over 1,000 negative and derogatory statements about me as a professional.”
The Senators announced on Tuesday they have opened an investigation into the Karlssons’ accusations.
“We are investigating this matter in co-operation with the NHL and will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the safety and privacy of our players and their families,” the team said in a statement.
It’s unclear why the Karlssons are convinced that Caryk is behind the cyber attacks.
Hoffman, Karlsson’s Senators teammate of seven years, passionately denied the allegations, when reached by the Citizen, and offered to help track down the perpetrator(s).
Monika's boyfriend fiancé Mike Hoffman issued this statement of denial:
“There is a 150-percent chance that my fianceé Monika and I are not involved in any of the accusations that have been pursued coming our way. We totally understand there’s no place for cyberbullying. We’ve offered to cooperate and do anything it takes to find out who is doing this, and support them . Obviously this is a tough time that they’re going through, and we want to find out who is doing this, because for some reason it’s coming into our court, and it’s 150 percent that it’s not us. We have nothing to hide. We’re willing to cooperate in any way to solve this and figure it out, and prove that it wasn’t us."
Here is the same statement with analysis and emphasis added.
“There is a 150-percent chance that my fianceé Monika and I are not involved in any of the accusations that have been pursued coming our way.
1. Numeric noted. It is above "100%" which becomes similar to hyperbolic language: the need to persuade.
2. Note its length. He does not say, "My fiancé' Monika did not make those posts against..."
This would have been very short and very strong.
3. Note that the involvement is a "chance" rather than a fact. When in employment analysis one tells me that hiring them is a "chance", I am thankful to them for telling me. Hiring anyone is subject to "chance" in life; therefore, it is unnecessary to state. It is similar to the need to say, "I am not perfect" and "No one is perfect."
Unnecessary words are vital. In a recent article, a conservative pundit told us "we all should hope for a denuclearized North Korea but..." as if we may have thought to root for a nuclear bomb killing millions of people. The admonition is unnecessary. "Virtue Signaling" has become popular, yet often projective.
Not only is the imperative of "hope" unnecessary to state, but the word "but" combines with it to reveal the author'
s personal feelings about success.
It is a "chance", howbeit more than "100%" likely that they were not involved. I accept that this is only a "chance" rather than a statement of fact.
4. Monika is accused, but he links himself to the accusation with "Monika and I are not involved." He introduced her with a complete social introduction, indicating a good relationship at the time of this statement, and introduced the topic of investigating him in this case.
5. The accusations are "pursued" and are "coming our way", further uniting himself to her.
This raises the question: is her guilt or innocence tied to him?
It also raises other questions, to come.
We totally understand there’s no place for cyberbullying.
1. "We" unites them together.
2. "Totally" is their understanding. He does not say "we understand there is no place for cyberstalking" but that they "totally" understand. What warrants their "total" understanding?
Is "total" the same as "100%"?
3. "There's no place for cyberbullying."
This reminds me of the bumper sticker, "there's no excuse for elder abuse", which is categorized as "unnecessary" information. Are there people outside the office, carrying signs and walking in circles chanting, "More elder abuse! More elder abuse!"
I don't believe the conservative author wants to see North Korea kill millions of people with a nuclear bomb. He does, however, reveal his own desire to see failure on the part or the president. It was "unnecessary" to state.
Virtue Signaling, such as "there's no place for cyberbullying" can be from different sources:
a. Projection of guilt.
b. Defensive posture due to sensitive or PC environment.
a. Projection of guilt.
For almost a year, analysts were able to identify celebrities about to be outed as sexual abusers, based upon their bold, lecturing statements against sexual assault and harassment.
People are making much out of President Clinton's recent statement about a shift in touching women against their will. This was not a "Freudian slip." It was consistent with many statements and credible allegations of rape and sexual assault previously made. This is the same subject who told a nation, "I did not have sexual relations..." indicating unique confidence in context.
Director James Comey's incessant lecturing on morals and ethics are in context coming after deception.
Recall Republican candidate Judge Roy Moore who "virtue signaled" how polite he was to the parents of the teenaged girls he had exploited.
b. Defensive Posture in PC environment is almost impossible to escape.
Matt Damon, actor, attempted to differentiate between levels of seriousness in sexual assaults and was castigated for it. Sexual comments are different than child rape, but the backlash left others in a state of jeopardy:
"How do I come across as the single most offended, angry, repulsed champion of this cause?
How can I appear to be the most outraged?"
With this context in mind, we must consider that the statement about cyber bullying could be either projective of guilt, or defensive posturing against criticism.
The unity of "we" continues in the statement:
We’ve offered to cooperate and do anything it takes to find out who is doing this, and support them (the Karlssons).
While being investigated he said "we've offered to cooperate." This is not to say they are cooperating, but to report the offer.
This is suggestive of, though not complete, the "good guy" principle.
They are against cyber bullying.
Needless? Yes, but it could be virtue signaling or it could be defensive posture from social media excesses.
It also could be both.
They've "offered" to support the Karlsons; his teammate and his wife.
That there may be a gap now between them is a matter for the team but it also could be something else...
Obviously this is a tough time that they’re going through, and we want to find out who is doing this, because for some reason it’s coming into our court, and it’s 150 percent that it’s not us."
Mike Hoffman made this statement. He is Erik Karlsson's teammate.
"This is a tough time that they're going through" is to show empathy for the Karlssons. This is a "Positive Linguistic Disposition" (principle) point in the statement.
Note now he explains why, however, he wants to find out who is doing this:
"because, for some reason it's coming into our court"
Question: What does this do to the PLD point?
Note that he now raises the question:
Would you be concerned for the Karlsson's if your fiancé' was not accused?
Then, he revisits his hyperbolic numberic of "150% not us."
We have nothing to hide. We’re willing to cooperate in any way to solve this and figure it out, and prove that it wasn’t us,”
"We" have nothing to hide, but does Monika?
The statement of "will" continues uniting him to Monika; who alone is accused (at this point).
"It wasn't us":
In an investigation, this statement, "it wasn't us" will need to include:
No knowledge of who it was that did it.
The subject has not issued a reliable denial. This form of numeric is consistent with one who is routinely deceptive.
Unreliable Denial: This does not mean he did it, but that he has not reliably told us that he did not.
We go deeper.
The problem with his denial:
He was not accused.
This causes many complexities to the analysis yet provide a good learning opportunity in Statement Analysis training.
He has not stated that the accused did not do it.
He was not named in the court request for protection. Yet, he issues a denial for them both and does so in an Unreliable manner.
Technical Truth: if he is not involved, it is thus true that "Monika and I" did not do it, but,
Did Monika without him?
Did Monika know who did do it?
The denial moves to "Unreliable" as it changes the target of the accusation and it has a need to persuade.
Yet, we have a complexity due to the allegation.
It would be like Hillary Clinton saying, "Bill and I did not have sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky"...in a manipulative sense as she was not part of the accusation. This would be technically truthful, but would be an attempt to use her de facto innocence on behalf of another.
The subject's "need to persuade" reveals his own doubt about Monika, even as he strongly is united with her. His linguistic perception of their relationship at this time is very strong.
Yet, his words reveal that he has doubts about her.
His unreliable denial creates more questions:
Did he do it with Monika?
This is because he has united himself with her, though the order of protection did not appear to include him. Therefore more questions are provoked:
Does he have guilty knowledge of Monika doing this?
Does he suspect Monika did this? The analysis indicates that he does.
Does he have guilty knowledge of her actions?
Did he watch Monika post these things?
Did he hear about it from someone else?
Does he suspect that Monika had someone do this for her?
Did he and Monika have someone do this for them?
Did he and/or Monika create a false account and persona, so that "they" did it and not "Monika and I"?
Is he, himself, innocent, but wants to fight with her, for her sake?
The relationship with Monika, at the time of this statement, is very strong.
What does he believe the meaning of "100%" to be?
What does, to him, "150%" mean?
What effort does he give on the ice? 100%? 150%?
Did he and Monika not do this but did other things online that were against his teammate and his teammate's wife?
Did you notice the sign being held by the accused in the photo?
Melinda Karlsson has a reputation for charity work. Competition can be a necessity and it also can be personality driven. The male partners compete with each other and this atmosphere can spread. It is why Domestic Violence and sports can have an association. This is specifically noted among athletes who:
a. do not control their emotions
b. who seek to humiliate the competition after obtaining victory.
It is a difficult trait to "turn off" when the athlete is no longer competing. It can infect the home and even child raising.
"Why can't you control the kids the way I do?" is an example of competition entering parenting.
This is why early training of self control in sports can be valuable in life and something we explore for in law enforcement hiring:
Self control and human empathy.
The absence of such should preclude hiring.
Given the nature of locker room sports, it is highly unlikely that the team officials were ignorant of the allegations.
The subject indicates a strong sensitivity with the cyber statements against the Karlssons. In the sport, there is high risk of injury, including life altering injuries. Therefore, trust is indispensable to the team chemistry.
His concern for the Karlssons is, in this Statement, associated not with justice, but due to the allegation against his fiancé of which he places upon himself.
In the very least, he suspects his fiancé in this, or associated bad behavior online, and may be willing to defend her by allowing him to be accused.
Please note: some innocent people believe that they can "weaken" allegations against another by adjoining oneself to the allegation. This is because they know it cannot be proved that he, the subject himself, must be found innocent, therefore the partner is "innocent by proxy."
Could he now marry her to impact testimony? This would be dependent upon external factors, including consequence.
Analysts should note the inclusion of "at this time" in the relationship status. Things change and in an environment of accusation, a relationship can disintegrate quickly if one party has the impulse of self preservation.
Finally, consider this:
The need for the use of "150%" in a denial likely reveals someone who is not truthful in his normal day to day activities. It can indicate personality trait deception (a norm) while maintaining a specific image (the need to be portrayed as the good guy).
This is something that team officials will have to take into account as this is no longer "private locker room" issue, but now public.
Sports teams make critical decisions based upon psychological evaluations of players, even when "political correctness" precludes a formal eval being completed.
This is likely to impact them.
The Positive Linguistic is neutralized by the self serving "clear us" cause of concern.
This is likely to be a source of tension in the locker room and probably has for some time.
A problem like this does not suddenly materialize, but it grows slowly.
We may wonder if Monika felt marginalized by Mrs. Karlsson's marital status and by her recognition for charity work.
This can move from competition to humiliation and cause intense animosity, as seen in personal messages, including the loss of a child.
The suspicion on the part of Mike Hoffman towards his fiancé is likely to impact them when this is resolved. Even if she was not involved, his words tell us:
He knows she is capable of such cruelty.