1. Error due to contamination
2. Error due to failure to have peer review
I do not include the single most common error in statement analysis: the miss.
There is good reason for this omission as an error and it is simple:
The analyst has made his or her conclusion (male and female analysts are uniquely and marvelously different in thought, language, and emotion) as either Deception Indicated or Veracity Indicated (with a rare "inconclusive" due to brevity, or "contaminated") and will almost always have a point "missed", but this will not impact the analysis conclusion. It will, however, be another point of information helpful in the investigation or interview.
This is because the brain can only process so much information at any given time and overloading can take place. This is heightened when a trail or 'scent' is picked up by the analyst and he knows the subject is lying. This is a bias that he must be aware of and continue to 'enslave himself' to the statement.
As questions arise, the analyst seeks answers from the statement, or will seek them in the interview; but wants them answered. Some of these questions are posed by the analyst as he "thinks aloud" and keeps himself 'alert' for the answer even as the subject 'takes him on a different road, entirely.'
In such analysis conclusions, the "Deception Indicated" and "Veracity Indicated" holds an expectation of 100% or quite close, over the long haul. This length of time speaks to the long-term health of the results and far outpaces all other sciences and the coin toss results of the untrained.
But profiling is quite different.
Once the analyst has the conclusion, which, for the sake of this article, is "Deception Indicated", he then begins to "add up" his questions and concerns to uncover 4 specific things about the subject:
1. His Background.
2. His Experiences in life.
3. His priority or priorities.
4. His personality.
It is here where if the analyst, who has at or near 100% conclusion record of lie detection, over a period of years, will be a success if he has north of 70% accuracy in the profile.
The subject claimed to have been injured at work and instead of getting into the issue with him, the Human Resources professional said, "Please sit here and write out what happened from the time you got to work until now. If you wish to change any word, just draw a single line through it. We want to hear what happened from you." She handed him paper (lots), 2 pens, and brought bottled water.
The statement is then sent to an analyst with the following information:
"This subject claimed to have fallen down stairs where mopping had just taken place. He has not been interviewed. English is his first language. We'd like to know if he is telling the truth. I know you've said not to give details but I heard that this happened at his last job and he does not seem injured. Thank you. "
She was right and had to be reminded that she is setting up the analyst for bias. English first language is okay, and any blaring mental health issues (hearing voices) can be added, but that is it.
Here is why and where the 30% errors may often be found:
1. Background: male, mid 30's, white, English first language, above average intelligence
2. Experiences: language suggests college degree
3. Priority: Larceny. He is seeking to game the system by making a fraudulent claim
4. Personality; Selfish, high minded, narcissistic-like, stubborn, bully....
Among these, errors often occur as, for example:
A recent profile showed what was very likely to be a 4 year college degree. The grammar and usage was not perfect, but it was proficient.
It was high school only.
What was my response?
"What year did she graduate? It was likely pre 1985."
It was 1975.
A college grad (4 years) recently submitted one in which she wrote, "I feel like I am really a great worker! even if I say so myself. lol!"
I had known before hand the degree, otherwise, I would have been off.
The profile must shift.
The analyst must shift with culture in order to be correct.
When the average college grade jumps from a "C" to today's "A" either we are getting a whole lot smarter or...
expectations and results are in decline.
When "racism" is invoked, consider it is "racism" by the accusers when they attempt to make vulgarity a "race norm", by lowering expectations for children based upon the color of their skin. This hinders education with the only ones profiting being politicians and textbook sellers.
The kids are betrayed. Learning proper English takes more effort, therefore, the value of anything in this life requires effort, determination and hard work, whereas 'victim status' and excuse making cause politicians to prosper while they destroy children's educations and earning potential. Regarding the dropping of grades, you can read Daniel Greenfield's Snowflake Nation and consider why many college professors fear free speech and scrutiny.
With the success rate in Statement Analysis' "Deceptive or Truthful" near or at 100% for those formally trained (which presupposes peer review) the profiling of Background, Priority and Personality will not produce numbers this high, and are impacted particularly in discerning educational experiences of a subject.
"Priority" or "priorities", is likely the closest to "Statement Analysis" as it is often included in the work, but in profiling, the single most important element is "personality" type as this is:
1. The number one element of security vetting. Personality, more than anything else (sans deception, which is a game ender) tells us risk.
2. An important element (crucial, mostly) is personality in Interview strategy. This is where, in following our steps of Analytical Interviewing, we will set our own stance; neutral, subordinate, etc, and where we allow the subject to take "the most control" of the interview. It is where we find our confessions: actual.
3. Personality type is critical in hiring the right person for the right position. Cleared as an honest person, the personality will allow us to know:
a. does this person work well with the public?
b. does this person work well with co workers?
c. Will he impact morale positively or negatively?
d. Is he better suited for a position working alone than with others?
e. What will this person be like when a customer disagrees with her?
f. What about sarcasm? Does she disarm with humor, or is it nasty passive-aggressiveness?
g. Does the personality suggest eager to learn? Or
h. Does the personality suggest an egotist who is pedantic?
i. Does the personalty suggest responsibility or...
j. Does the applicant have a ready-made-all purpose excuse?
...and so on.
It is in the points of education, age, and experiences, that we find error, though the error is not 'game changing' error, and anything north of 70% is going to be highly useful. Once we are beyond 80%, we are close to identifying an anonymous author of a threatening statement.
Training Seminars are offered for law enforcement and businesses, while private training in Statement Analysis includes 12 months of e support, with various opportunities for professional expertise for the individual. This provides traction for careers and establishes strong resumes, all the while, providing an invaluable service to your department, company, and society at large.
for tuition, payments, scheduling.