Thursday, June 14, 2018
Religion and Deity in Statement Analysis
Religion is classified as ideology in Statement Analysis. It is a dispassionate view that is necessary in criminal analysis. It is not an insult to people of faith.
Every one has a "religion"; that is, a final arbitration of right and wrong. It is within human nature and is without exception.
We identify the ideology whether it be a known and recognized religion or a lesser known or classified ideology. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Statism, and so on, are all "religions" for the purpose of analysis.
There is no such thing as "atheism", for the atheist has a final point of arbitration of what is right and what is wrong.
In Statement Analysis, it is vital to learn this demarcation origin.
For some, it points to self, whereas for others, it can point to those they look up to and quote, including actors, actresses or politicians. Still others will look to science as its "god", while many still claim "agnosticism." Here, we still seek motive.
For those in social sciences, this is inescapable for prognosis moving forward. Does the subject believe he or she is a helpless victim of circumstance? Or, is there a sense of control over personal behavior?
In some "religious" setting, I noted recently that a change of language is used. First, the lesson, and then the recent "change of language" viewed.
Principle: In Statement Analysis, a change of language means a change of reality.
The analyst should now look to see, in the statement, what in reality has changed for the subject's verbalized perception of reality.
"I saw the jewelry in the case. The last time I saw the necklace, um, it was when I had my girlfriend try it on. I then I just left the store. I had to go to work."
Change of language: The "jewelry" changed into the "necklace."
The analyst now looks to see what reality changed as reflected in the change of language. In the case, it was "jewelry" but on his girlfriend it was a "necklace." In fact, it was when he "had" his girlfriend try it on, this event had the power to change the language. It is indicative of theft.
Did you notice "the good guy" principle here? He "left" and he "left because" he had to go to "work."
Since he has a job, he could not have stolen the necklace...right?
This is insight into his personality and manipulation. It is often associated with substance abuse.
Substance Abuse v Substance Use?
In a non-traditionally recognized "religious" setting, (according to Statement Analysis) I noted that the government instructor had changed "substance abuse" into "substance use" and that he claimed:
"We are criminalizing the behavior of people with substance use disorder."
The context for this statement in a seminar was drug crimes such as breaking into a home, or violently attacking someone to take their money to pay for drugs.
The thinking is: change the language and reality will change. It is similar to putting responsibility of violence on inanimate objects rather than humans. This is their "religious view" and they have their "zealous" or "extremest" who are intent on removing personal responsibility.
Will the change of language be successful in changing human nature?
Is "theft" no longer "theft" if it involves, not substance "abuse" but substance "use"?
In Employment Analysis, substance abuse is discerned and those in recovery are often plain to spot: they do not state that they take personal responsibility for their actions; they take responsibility for their actions.
It is crucial to their ongoing recovery. They know and live by: deception destroys.
To AA and NA, if they are passive victims of circumstance, there is no hope. If they can take personal responsibility for their own actions, they have hope.
As illogical the statement shifting responsibility and changing language may appear, it is likely to be defended with religious zealotry including the predictable condemnation of those who refuse to agree.
Did you note who is being blamed in the sentence?
"We are criminalizing the behavior of people with substance use disorder."
Can you see how this, if accepted, will lead politicians to portray police as the "bad guys" for arresting criminals? Should they arrest the "substance" instead?
This "principle passion" is the "god" for our subject. We sometimes seek the identity of this "god" in the interview process with questions beginning with, "why?"
This is due to learning source and motive in crime and criminal behavior.
Public Assault Investigation
Without provocation or even an exchange of words, a man wearing a hood and a black mask assaulted a young woman. He did not rob her, nor did he attempt to rob her or sexually assault her. He punched her only.
This is our first question and we are going to need to identify the ideology behind it:
Why is it wrong to assault a stranger who has had no interaction with the subject?
Think of the phrase of the fascist organization ANTIFA: "punch a Nazi."
In watching videos of such assaults, a pattern emerged.
The ANTIFA does not know what "fascism" is.
They fail to identify or refuse to identify, who is a "Nazi."
They fail to define what a "Nazi" is.
They classify anyone who does not agree with their unstated demands as a "Nazi."
They do not permit speech, moving the ideological classification to a new level: anyone who does not join them is a "Nazi" or a national socialist.
This is very important to understand.
Instead, there is a faux moral supremacy that not only justifies anonymous violence; it calls for it.
Historically, faux moral superiority ends in bloodshed. It leads extremist personalities to act upon their most base human instincts and gives it a moral justification.
If you want to know the crime, know the criminal. The psycho-linguistic profile is essential to the investigator and crucial to the interview.
Before anyone is labeled an "extremist" we must first identify the ideology.
We then look at the action and asked,
"Is this action (behavior) in accordance to the expressed ideology or is it in opposition to the ideology?"
We also look at the "peripheral" of religion; that is, how it impacts culture, in specifics: crime. Is the criminal behavior a culturally evident consequence?
A positive example: "Protestant Work Ethic" is an expression from the Reformation that taught "all work that is legal and ethical is holy." We recognize, historically, the impact upon western civilization and in particular, 19th and early 20th Century immigration to the United States. Opportunity was taken by work ethic to advanced heights of success.
We then look at one who refuses to work. Is he consistent with this ideology or is he opposing it?
A negative example:
The rape epidemic sweeping multiculturalism: is this consistent or inconsistent with the Koranic teaching on women and rape? When politicians respond with "sex lessons" and "teaching that rape is wrong", do they understand the religious and generational impact?
A neutral example:
An atheist is going to buy a house. He wants to live in a safe neighborhood where he can have his kids educated well.
This investment is significant and for most, the largest investment of a lifetime.
In other words: it matters.
Playing the odds: should he buy the house next door to the family that believes "thou shalt not steal" because in the afterlife, there will be a reckoning although the purchaser, himself, does not believe in any afterlife?
Or, should he buy the house next door to a family that believes in supremacist ideology: if 'you have more than me, you must have cheated me because I am your superior and I deserve...'? Would this be a wise investment?
Still, should he buy the house next door to the Statist family, who believes the government (the "state") is responsible for their survival? This family lives on government assistance. If he asks himself, "Will they bring down my property value?" he must now question if he is "bad" for thinking this.
"Statism" is incessantly changing. What is "virtue" yesterday, is "sin" today. What is "sin" today, may be "virtue" tomorrow.
We view ideology, not "persons" in this context. For example, studies show that most Muslims do not want Jihad. Anecdotally, I have found this to be so.
Yet, when you meet the claim that says something like "Jihad is not holy war it is personal struggle like one who is eating too much chocolate"; twisting of meaning, you are looking at danger due to the inherent deception.
The betrayal (rather than denunciation) of the ideology focuses the investigation by heightening the concern for terrorism, including the financing or collateral support of it.
Political Correctness in Language
Statement Analysis gets to the truth and the truth is not partisan, and sometimes it is directly oppositional to what politicians tell us.
This is where what many (not all) people say in public differs from what they say in private. Yet when one impresses upon others, what one, himself, will not submit to, we are seeing active deception. This should always cause investigators to dig deeper.
Verbalized Deity Witness versus The Psychological Wall of Truth
"I swear to God, I did not steal from my neighbor."
An intuitive cop will think to himself or herself, "Ok, so who did you actually steal from?"
Where (context) we see the need to reference Deity, in any form, as a testimony or buttress of words, we are looking at a deceptive person.
In the above example, what has this subject revealed?
The subject gave an unreliable denial and has revealed he is in need of divine witness because he normally practices deception and contextually, theft must be explored.
He may or may not have stolen now, but he has likely stolen before (context). In some cases like this, investigators have found that he did not steal, but has a history of theft.
"I swear to God" is to take an oath, where no such oath is required, such as in court or other formal matters.
It gets a bit trickier with Statism religion because the language is not overtly "religious." Yet, it is evident in the wording and it is to represent principle. An example of such is the condemnation of sexual assault where the subject is competing with others' language (or even his own) to be "the most outraged" or "the most offended."
This is the same principle: "I am a good person. I am a great person. I have high morals. I have the highest morals..." and at some point, the public recognizes the concealing of guilt. Law Enforcement do very well in this intuitively. They see the "need to persuade" without overt religious language and recognize it as the "religious person" acting "very religious" in the language.
Financial Fraud Investigation
In a recent investigation, an investigator described to me the distinct religious activity this company ownership follows.
Owners have staff meet for inspiration before each day and has religious slogans on the walls. This is overt and readily spotted. It is neither wrong nor right, good nor bad. It simply is.
I asked the investigator to identify the ideology for me.
I next asked the investigator if the company openly violates or has changed the ideology to suit itself?
This is not doctrinal differences; but an open declaration of deception: representing an ideology while being above or against the ideology. It is not a minor difference or disagreement.
The investigator affirmed the ideology is opposed in a crucial part of the business.
I said "you are likely looking at projective guilt which suggests, in this context, financial exploitation. Keep searching."
I explained that the subject is deceptive about ideology which means the ideology is subordinated to the owners. It is not their 'god' to guide them, but a tool of use.
This is where some may be offended but deception exists for a reason. It is not error, accident or happenstance.
I often say, "it would be honest to simply abandon the ideology, pick out a new ideology..." but this misses the point. The subject seeks personal advantage by exploiting the ideology. Criminal investigators in training soon "learn" what they've always thought:
Those who use deception for personal gain do not have a known stopping point.
The investigation into financial misconduct is ongoing. Recently, the investigator called to report:
They have found approximately $250,000 of fraud...thus far.
This is not error, accounting mistakes, or unintentional failure. It is the deceptive use of ideology which is a psychological mindset of religion: "I serve myself. One for you, one for me. One for you, two for me..." and it escalates. In the ideological sense, it is a religious "sacrifice" or "offering" to its "god."
The Good Guy Principle
The need to portray oneself as "the good guy" suggests a need, which may come from guilt.
Counseling sessions, criminal statements, screening in methadone clinics, etc, have indicated women who put their babies through withdrawal at birth, or who have been formally investigated for child abuse, refer to themselves as "a great mother."
One mother had sold drugs, had child pornography, bestiality, homemade porn, gave an example of being a good mother when she talked about stealing acid from her job and burning a tattoo into her son's shoulder. The context was failing a polygraph over her missing daughter who was later found murdered.
Regarding her treatment of her teen son she said, "I am a great mother!"
The owners use deity to cloak the guilt of fraud. Once they were identified as having corrupted their own ideology, it moves to exploitation of ideology: using it to mask guilt and to exploit others. Here, it is against "thou shalt not steal" which they have projected guilt over.
In analysis, always flag any reference to Divinity.
Next, note its context.
If the subject has the need to use a reference to Divinity, in any form, the subject practices deception, even if here, in the statement, the subject is telling the truth. The subject is revealing a need for further persuasion, rather than relying upon the truth.
Criminals are drawn to religion and the motive is important.
Some genuinely seek to change and amend their lives. The challenge for religious people is to use discernment patiently, carefully and mercifully. It is easy to mistake a hurting person for an exploiter, just as it is to see an exploiter as a genuine soul seeking peace.
Some consider religious people to be particularly naive and a "soft target" for crime, including pedophilia.
Analysts sometimes volunteer their skills to religious organizations to help discernment as pedophiles, for example, will use language that reveal their priority. This advanced form of analysis is used mostly in Employment Analysis and psycho-linguistic profiling.
Some consider religious people to be the most easy to exploit. The Facebook posts of this Go Fund Me thief were filled with religious references as she was exploiting people of good will.
What were the references of Deity used for? "Ingratiation Principle" readily highlighted and applied:
a. "I am a good person. It is okay to give me money."
b. "if you give money to me, you are a good person."
c. "If you are against racism, you should give me money."
d. "if you do not give me money, you are a racist."
Comments were thus used, there and in news articles to do the one thing deception must have to exist:
Silence scrutiny. "The issue is "settled", therefore, there will be no more questions. Move on."
People laugh today that the teen of this home wrote, "we gon be rich!" on Facebook, just as people laughed at Charlie Rogers' "Watch me as I set the world on fire!" post. Rogers set her home on fire and claimed 3 men brutalized her as "homophobic sadists."
Yet in many cases, analysts find that the guilty person will telegraph his own intention of criminal behavior including when seeking employment.
Some seek cover for their own guilt. Some will become harsh in judgment of others, due to their own internal guilt. Often in the name of "I refuse to compromise", they use a license to hurt others in order to maintain a false facade about them.
Analysts have become adept at predicting scandal by following Twitter accounts of celebrities and politicians. The more unnecessary condemnation they address, the more scrutiny they invite due to the possibility of projective guilt. Many of them do not disappoint.
There are elements within a statement that may have appropriate references to Deity.
The analyst should, by routine, flag every one for examination.
When the reference is used to persuade or even to testify, deception is likely present. It is to indicate a habitually deceptive person in particular and current need of credibility.
For training in Deception Detection visit www.hyattanlaysis.com
The Complete Statement Analysis Course is done in your home.
Ongoing Monthly Training
We hold live "invitation only" trainings on the last full week of each month.
These are trainings in which those enrolled or who have successfully finished the Complete Statement Analysis Course.
Here, we work in team analysis on live cases, putting our training to consequential results. It is to obtain justice while analysts learn from each other.
The CEUs are approved for license renewals for professionals in the Seminar setting as well.
Due to demand, we will be offering new dates for this additional and ongoing live training.
Please note: currently only law enforcement, military intelligence, and licensed professionals are eligible for the Tuesday confidential live monthly trainings. Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) for professional licenses is approved by the University of Maine.