Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Linguistic Empathy In Analysis
The psycho-linguistic profile is a careful construct from the foundation of Statement Analysis, including some advanced techniques, and guided team analysis.
It requires a thorough understanding and application of analysis in detecting deception and discerning truth. Without this foundation, the profile is likely to fail.
Linguistic Empathy is not human empathy. It is to allow the subject's language to guide us. We yield ourselves to the statement in a way that can make some uncomfortable. To conclude deception, we often are talked out of our presupposition of truth. To see, for example, what the pedophile or the thief sees in life, is critical to not only get to the truth, but in the interview process.
Analysts and Students are taught to ask questions, rather than assert. This is not only indispensable for 100% accuracy in detecting deception, but it is psychologically protective. The analyst will say, "Is this an example of ___________" rather than in the imperative, "this is _______"
This is a noted trait among top analysts. In team analysis, it not only provokes thought among others, but it keeps the analyst raising the issue in a position of not having to defend an errant point. This is to grasp human nature. Few people like being wrong and the instinctive reaction is to defend ourselves.
Hence, they see the examples of professional analysts contributing to team analysis via questions.
The "vision" within a statement comes from several basic elements, but is crowned by one.
a. Fundamentals. This means memorizing basic principles.
b. This is to understand the psychology of the principles; why they are what they are. In homework submissions, analysts "teach" rather than answer basic questions. This instruction is done as if the recipient has no understanding and it is buttressed with examples.
c. Asking questions, rather than assertions
d. Listening carefully to, and receiving inspiration from others (team)
This produces the comedic, "If only I could analyze alone as I do with the team!" response that is frequently heard.
e. In submitting to the statement (emotionally, intellectually) with a dispassionate view, empathy, based upon the words, builds.
g. Statements of Consequence
These are statements of live cases in which verification may be obtained. It means there is "something on the line" that will matter.
The crowning element on top of all of these?
The "first 100 statements analyzed" is a turning point for many.
Linguistic Empathy comes with volume.
If you wish to learn the language of a thief, you must analyze many theft statements.
If you wish to learn the language of an arsonist, you must analyze many arson statements.
If you wish to learn the language of rape victims, you must study more statements of rape than you may ever want to.
If you wish to learn Employment Analysis, you must have the fundamentals, the openness of shifting paradigms, and be willing to analyze hundreds of employment applications.
Linguistic Empathy means seeing and accepting the ______ 's verbalized perception of reality.
It is often unsettling, ugly and emotionally taxing.
It is often against the indoctrination of many public school educations where the student has 12 or more years of focus upon his or her own emotions. Not only is critical thinking not advanced, but a very narrow view of reality must now be overcome by the enrollee; nor is it oft found in those with military background.
In law enforcement, this is not a general problem. It business, social services and other departments
"I'm seeing depression here..." must be met with:
c. When have you see that before?
d. How many statements with depression have you analyzed?
e. How many of these have been independently verified? (often a psych eval on record)
The analyst is not to use guess work, but to ask questions to which the answers must be in the language.
"Could this be depression here?" is to explore.
"What does this subject perceive is happening here?"
This goes for many such elements within the experiences of the subject, including substance abuse and theft.
We speak often of "RPM", the "rationalization" (justification), projection and minimization within criminal statements and in our own language.
The western mind retains a subjective understanding of "masculinity" to which is expected, for example, when a police officer, male or female, goes into harm's way, sacrificing self, and accepting risk and employing physical strength, to rescue a child.
We equate sacrifice with bravery.
We thus project this into cultures that do not share our origin. A contrary culture is "I am more valuable than the child. I produce more, right now, for society. I do not know if the child will produce, or be strong enough to produce..." The conclusion is self preservation; not "women and children first" from the Titanic Society.
In child abuse cases, investigators and analysts recoil from statements, often in disbelief. Yet, the training insists that they must believe and accept the subject's words (linguistic empathy) and not project their own core beliefs, in order to maintain accuracy.
This is challenging yet a terrific medicinal application is team analysis.
The most important question, followed by the most important principle in profiling.
How many statements have you done where you "saw" depression and receive external confirmation?
Take this for other topics.
How many theft statements have you analyzed?
How many anonymous author identification statements have you worked?
The more allegation specific statements analyzed, the better the vision to see into the language. There is no short cut, nor substitute for experience.
I observe that those with the most experience often make the fewest assumptions, but ask the most questions.
The humility they possess and exercise, is their strength.
The many statements analyzed (experience) teaches them to "see" the subject's own verbalized perception of reality, including his justification, his minimization and even his projection of guilt.
Human nature is complex.
In a recent employment analysis, Human Resources was instructed to view video evidence of a crime by an employee.
Because during a meeting, the employee made an emotional plea for social justice unrelated to the meetings' content. She sought "support" from others and condemned anyone who might disagree (though none did; it was "unnecessary" and irrelevant information,
Human Resources was thus told that this emotional projection, especially the need to condemn others, was likely a result of projected guilt.
The video showed significant theft.
The employees need for moral supremacy was highlighted (quotes were given) and a suspicion was followed to conclusion.
For training in detecting deception for law enforcement, military and the private sector, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.
See the few samples on You Tube as well.