Here is a submission from analyst, Jason Henrikson, which highlights the thoroughness of working through a public post from Facebook.
Update: Please note: Since the analysis, the author has admitted writing it and the restaurant apologized to the falsely accused customer. It is interesting to note Jason's work, particularly a single line which gives the author away.
“I did write it,” Khalil Cavil, 20, told the Odessa American of the note on the receipt, which read “We don’t tip terrorist.”
This allows readers to see some expected results from applying oneself to training in Complete Statement Analysis.
Last night at work I received this note from one of
my tables. At the moment I didn’t know what to think
nor what to say, I was sick to my stomach. I share
this because I want people to understand that this
racism and this hatred still exists. Although, this is
nothing new, it is still something that will test your
faith. All day I’ve had to remind myself that Jesus
died for these people too. I have decided to let this
encourage me, and fuel me to change the world the
only way I know how. So to all the haters out there,
keep talkin, your only helping me step into my
destiny!
Last night at work I received this note from one of
my tables.
- Where a person starts a statement is important. It shows their priority and sometimes even their motive.
- Where a statement begins with the pronoun “I” it is likely to contain information, even if the author is employing deception. This is why we never dismiss one as a "liar", which leads to failure in Content Analysis.The statement does not start with “I” until later on but has the elements of time and location. This means that time and location are a priority to the subject. Why?
- The pronoun “I” is used so the subject now places himself psychologically into the statement.
- The rest of the sentence follows the expected truthful sentence structure of the pronoun “I”, past tense verb and object. We can believe that the subject did in fact receive the note from one of his tables. The question we are to identify is did he receive the note in the displayed form with the writing “We don’t Tip Terrorist”?
- The subject brings the note closer to him psychologically by using “this” instead of referring to that note. Why does he want to associate himself with the note? Why does he want to be closer to the note with xenophobic remarks?
- It is expected that the subject would simply state “I received that note last night”. It follows the Law of Economy, follows the truthful structure of the pronoun I, past tense verb and an object. The breaking of this structure shows sensitivity but we cannot conclude anything further at this point.
We listen to and follow his language.
Did we take notice he didn't receive the note from one of "my customer"? It is true, technically, that it came from "the table" where he left it!
At the moment I didn’t know what to think
nor what to say, I was sick to my stomach.
- The element of time reappears with “at the moment”. However “the moment” is used and not “that moment” referring to a past time event. Is he going to present tense now? Why is the element of time important to him?
- The Rule of The Negative is engaged with the subject telling us what he didn’t think of say instead of what he did think or say. This is a Sensitivity Indicator.
- The priority order of thinking and then saying is noted – was he thinking of the $0 tip or was he thinking about the written remarks?
- The use of emotion by the subject is also noted. For traumatic events the length of time between the event and the statement is crucial when noting emotions in a statement due to the way an individual mind processes the event psychologically. This is where we look for “artificial placement” of emotions (perfect placing before psychologically processing).
- Here is perfect or logical placement of an emotion. Has the subject processed his trauma from last night? Is he perseverating from an earlier traumatic event?
- Is this a Need To Persuade/storytelling?
I share
this because I want people to understand that this
racism and this hatred still exists.
- Here we have a hina clause which is one of two of the highest levels of sensitivity that is used. Now we see a possible link with the elements of time and place. The subject wants people to know racism and hatred “still” exists. He is highlighting that the racism and hatred is here and it is now – this is emphasized by the word “still”.
- Will this be a start of “Sermonizing” and “Virtue Signalling”?
- The word “this” again showing closeness of the subject shows he is psychologically close to racism and hatred.
Although, this is
nothing new, it is still something that will test your
faith.
- The Rule of the Negative is highlighted again and is asserting that “this” is “nothing new”. In the lesser context we do not know what he is referring to. What is nothing new? If the subject is unwilling and/or unable to tell us we do not interpret.
- Is it the racism and hatred that is nothing new or is it the subject’s posting of a potential “hate crime”?This is the "Normal Factor" in which the author wants his audience to believe that "Islamophobia" (irrational fear of the ideology of Islam) is a "norm." This is a form of "need to persuade" that suggests the author has not likely experienced negativity towards him, personally, as a "norm." Islam teaches "jihad" and subjugation of "infidels" (non followers), by violent coercion.
- Religion is brought into play by using “your” as a disassociation. The subject makes no mention of “my faith” but is “your faith”. This distancing language affirms the "Normal Factor"; he does not regularly experience negativity due to his political/religious belief.
- The greater context is that a potential hate crime has been committed by referring to the subject as a terrorist. Terrorism is not solely religious based but can be a political and that is the original etymology for the word terrorist.
- The lesser context the subject is psychologically distancing himself from the intended audience’s “faith”. Does he view himself as a believer in any faith? Why does he not align himself with the intended audience’s faith?
- “test your faith” – is this leakage? Is this showing his motivation that he is testing the intended audience’s faith?*Is he testing his own faith and commitment to political Islam? Is he fearful or conflicted about embracing Islamic conquest?
All day I’ve had to remind myself that Jesus
died for these people too.
Ingratiation Factor and Masking
He now introduces "terrorism" as "faith" followed by reference to "Jesus" (Christianity). Ideology of Chrisitianty opposes deception. The two ideologies are diametrically opposed; based upon reciprocity versus coercion.
- The element of time is repeated with his stating of “all day”. This is enforcing the earlier possibility that he is wanting the intended audience to “know” that “racism and hatred” is “still” here and now?
- The subject brings in religion and also divinity with reference to Jesus. Is there a link from him brining Jesus into the statement here and “your faith” in the previous statement? Islam also holds Jesus as Isa as an important figure but not in the same way as Christians do.
- Using divinity is a Sensitive Indicator – the subject is sensitive to religion and Jesus
- By not referring to Isa but to Jesus is the subject specifically targeting the intended audience as a “Christian audience”?
- Using “too” (as in “addition” too) as a word he is referencing the alleged perpetrators as well as other people. But who are the other people? He does not include himself psychologically in this part but who else did Jesus die for?
- Is this Sermonizing/Virtue Signaling again?
I have decided to let this
encourage me, and fuel me to change the world the
only way I know how.
- The subject is psychologically in the statement with “I” but uses the word “let” which diminishes his responsibility for what comes after. This weakens his commitment
- Encourage me and fuel me. These are not expected – in the case of retaliations it is expected that someone would be “forced to”, “no option but”, “must”. Encourage and fuel are weak in comparison. Why is the subject weak about his retaliation?
- Change the world – now we know what the subject’s aim and Priority is. He wants to change the world. How does he want to change the world? How does he want the world to be? He does not mention that he wants a world without racism, hatred so what does he want the world to be?
So to all the haters out there,
keep talkin, your only helping me step into my
destiny!
These are sobering words in context of terrorism and being tested.
Conclusion
Deception Indicated
The subject is deceptive about who wrote the comments on the note. Whether it was he or someone else that actually wrote the note it was not the customers who’s bill it was.
There are many sensitivity indicators in the statement; the main one being the hina clause. Here we see the true intention of the statement; he wants everyone to know that racism and hatred still exists [here and now]. This is also backed up by the elements of time and place in the statement. It is important for him to enforce these exist today.
The sermonizing/virtue signaling about religion/faith and the reference to “terrorist” in the note indicate his likely motivation. Terrorism in today’s context is almost uniquely used for Islamic peoples whereas its true meaning was for political violence. Even though Islam is its own political system the merging of meanings also highlights the subject’s motivation.
The possible leakage of the subject stating “tests your faith” would appear to fit the overall conclusion.
In an employment analysis situation the subject would be deemed a risk to his employer and proves a risk to his current employer due to his religious and political beliefs.