|Bing the color blind dog.|
E.g., you were expected to go to the hockey game. Next day, someone asks you about your evening at the hockey rink. You say, "I never went to the game".
On the other hand, if you were supposed to be working last night, and someone says, "I saw you at the hockey game", your response would be "I did not go to the hockey game".
So, I never went vs. I did not go. To my ear, both are truthful and reliable depending on the context."
First: Thank you to the commentator for giving me food for thought, and food to share with others, by that which you assert. I did not use your name because you have not responded to my request to do so. It is an intelligent comment.
This is a principle and it is "unreliable."
Yet, for the analyst who seeks to be accurate: always conclude that it is not reliable. Never conclude that "never" is reliable. "Never say never" so to speak. The key is this:
Unreliable does not mean deceptive.
Yes, she knew he was black.
c. The other roommate (3rd party) said he was black
d. The subject herself, did say he was black (or "African-American")
e. other unknown reasons.
In other words, I believe that when the young woman (who is in a college dorm, presupposing, statistically, higher intelligence) would want to communicate to the 911 operator a solid description of the belligerent male, more than she would want to be deliberately vague in order to not offend.
This is why I concluded as I did, that the quick change from "didn't" to "never" is because the subject is an honest non-racist person (with blond hair and blue eyes, presupposing light skin) and did not want to "play into the deceptive male's hands" of being a racist. The wording is just too close together for me to ignore.
This is where the skill of the analyst comes into play and I know of no other way to obtain this than in doing many, many interviews and many, many statements for analysis, and being able to compare the results of both.
I thank the poster for his or her comments, and appreciate the opportunity to go into a bit more depth due to the healthy scientific skepticism. I believe the poster's language showed an openness to learning and understanding, and also showed a good eye for detail and a respect for principle.
The post was encouraging to me, personally, as I see a growing desire to get past the lazy minded, "Well, just tell us, who is lying here!" attitude that is the bane of a quick-fix no delay society.
I also know that many readers appreciate irony as I do.
Here we had a black male claiming racism while being a racist himself. He projected his own selfish ambitions into his article, and targeted a female who I have since read, has been an activist herself.
She was faced with real life wrestling, while he sought to deliberately exploit the emotions of black people for his own gain.
The element of "Us versus Them" has gained much traction since the election of Barak Obama. I feel that personally, race relations are worse now than in any time of my life.
I will be writing more about race and analysis in upcoming articles, including some possible guest articles from black and white police officers.
You may be pleasantly surprised to hear from professionals who not only can accurately define racism, but openly defy it, each and every day "on the street", in their work, and, as I do, find it to be one of the most illogical issues of our day.
You have already become accustomed, in the past few years, to the rise of "Fake Hate" events and the language that exposes them.
No matter which direction the racism is headed, it always cuts, damages, and bleeds people out, but beneath it is the temptation to "join us" against "them", whoever "us" and "them" is.
It is a propaganda that when unveiled, has the same 'feel' to it that uncovering lies does in the success of Statement Analysis.