Friday, November 10, 2017

Hinderances to Deception Detection Training

We receive inquiries for formal training daily and have been taking steps to filter out those who enroll.  

Statement Analysis is a science.  This means it is a systematic and analytical process of which, when applied evenly, the same results should result, no matter the analyst or where the analysis is completed.  

Where one presupposes understanding in communication, analysis can be done.  

If an applicant is of reasonable intelligence and applies himself or herself to the work, the expectation remains:  in detecting deception, 100% accuracy.  Contamination of a statement is the most likely element to cause error for the experienced analyst.  This is why, when recognized as such, the analyst will set aside the statement rather than analyze.  (Contaminated statements can be analyzed, but only by very experienced analysts and generally only in team analysis, rather than one alone).  

We caution new applicants that there are two major issues that will impact their work:

1.  Unresolved mental health issues. 

This can appear to be insulting, particularly to those with unresolved issues, but it will lead to error.  Those with unresolved issues pose a high risk for projection into a statement. They will "see" in a statement what is not there.  When accompanied by a strong intellect, it becomes even more problematic because instinctively they may find some success.  Eventually, however, it becomes "instinct versus principle" and over time, error will prevail and destroy the analyst's reputation. Moving forward in 2018, we will be including Questionnaires in the enrollment process.  

2.  Narrative 

The second issue we address with those seeking to enroll is Narrative Driven Ideology, or commonly called, "political correctness."

Political Correctness is a form of deception.  It is to exchange counterfeit linguistic currency and is used to exploit.  

The example I often cite is this:  If you believe Bruce Jenner's barking dog is a cat, you cannot do this work.  It is this simple.

You will be, one way or another, confronted in your narrative ideology where truth opposes emotion and if you yield truth to emotion, you will fail in analysis and bring your own professional reputation into disrepute. 

Here is why: 

Deception that is fueled by moral narcissism is a form of projection, itself.  

Question:  Why are we demanded to accept a man in women's clothing as a woman?

Answer:   Because it is the faux morally superior position.  

The findings of neuroscience agree with thousands of years of human observation:  men and women are different.  Their brain's develop differently and under the influence of different volume and frequency of hormones.  At just 8 weeks of gestation, the female baby experiences a dramatic increase in oxytocin which begins the vast difference between male and female babies.  The woman is formed.  

In analysis, we identify the gender of the writer for many more reasons than just Anonymous Author Identification.  The psycho-lingusitic profile's accuracy is based upon the differences between male and female.  

If someone is "offended" (emotional disturbance) 

Political Correctness seeks to change the meaning of language and must, due to its deceptive origin, resort to tyranny.  

Why is it "morally superior" to insist that Bruce Jenner is not a 65 year old grandfather, but a college co-ed?

The answer is found in a young college student's stance she took against Ben Shapiro.  She claimed "transgender people are being attacked and killed all over our nation today!"

Shapiro first asked her to name a single instance of such, in a country of 300 million people. 

When she could not, he then addressed bullying and dignity, stating that we cannot equate lying about one's gender to dignity and adding that no one should be mistreated.  He said that as a small Jewish kid, he experienced horrific bullying in school.  

The resultant thinking is this:  Unless you led a mentally ill man, wearing a dress, into the girl's bathroom, you are "attacking and killing transgendered people" and are "hateful", mentally ill with irrational fear, and a "Nazi" (a member of the German National Socialists party circa 1929-45) and a Fascist (government control of private business).  

It is truth that all of the assertions are deceptive.

Lying is not rational and habitual liars, especially the "Virtue Signalers" will appear illogical as the above picture shows.  

When driven by ideology, truth is not just sacrificed, but deception is embraced. 

Such a one cannot do this work.  

President Donald Trump did not call for the death penalty for the Vegas shooter because he was dead.  
Keith Olberman is not a person with developmental disabilities intellectually.  Yet, he reveals much of himself in the language he chooses, and the reality he overrules with emotion.  

College kids are inundated with infantilism and its generation embraces emotion above logic, and politicians know exactly how to appeal to it. 

'The whole point of Orwell's 1984 is to get people to trust government'.  Hillary Clinton said.   


When statistics tell us, plainly and collected outside the realm of politics, about murder rates, but a person chooses to believe, emotionally, that, for example, "police are racists and are killing black males at will", the lie that overrules truth is emotion based.  Eventually, they will be confronted with the same squaring off:

Emotion versus principle in analysis. 

If they are accustomed to having emotion overrule truth, it will not suddenly cease in lie detection.  Today, some who claim to be experts in lie detection are more akin to Keith Olbermann in their conclusions.  

In analyzing statements:  Sometimes the "good guy" did it, and sometimes the "bad guy" is innocent. We let the statement guide us.  

Every analyst must deal with his or her own beliefs, but remain committed to the principles of the science.  

When someone enrolls in training and has unresolved mental health issues, or is "politically correct", they will fail, sooner or later, in the work. They will become frustrated, disillusioned and often become combative, no different than those who want criminal penalties  sentences "mis pronoun'ing" someone.  The same name calling, labeling and assigning of motive that we see today from illogic, enters our science.  "Sexist" for identifying the gender; "racist" for identifying the race, and so on.  

Q.  You have given examples of Narrative Driven Ideology.  Can you give an example of an unresolved mental health issue?

A.  Yes.  We all have mental health issues no different than physical health issues.  The key comes down to recognition and accepting observations from others.  

Why?  Because our own mental health issue clouds our thinking. Here are some examples:  

If one sees himself or herself as an ongoing "victim" in life, (victim status)  they will "see" others as "victimizers."  This lack of personal responsibility is readily projected onto others, including the subject of a statement.  They may clear the guilty, for example, if they assimilate with what the guilty experienced. They are quick to blame.  

Another example is found in trauma.  Some victims of early childhood trauma remain hyper-vigilant. They will "see" deception where reliability exists. 

Q.  Isn't there any hope?
A.  Of course. 

When someone is acutely aware of such, it is openly discussed in team analysis.  Those who are honest with themselves do very well in such settings because they rely upon the judgment of others.  

We have, in any team in any session, experts in various fields.  Each analyst brings his or her background and experiences into the session.  When there is a strong willingness to get to the truth, overriding one's own need to "be right", the work is fabulous. 

When one, due to trauma, struggles to see reliability in a statement, the prescription for remedy is lots of reliable statements analyzed, until it, too, becomes part of the brain's pattern recognition.  Both deception and reliability are discerned through the applicator of principle. 

Keith Obermann, like "social justice warriors" that emulate him,  is incapable of journalism because he is incapable of truth.   His emotions have long overruled truth, and he is a habitual deceiver.  He will hear "Hitler" in every word that President Trump uses. When it becomes absurdity in language, he increases his strength.   He can see hundreds of thousands of dead from Islamic terrorism, but say that President Trump is more dangerous and will use all of his powers of persuasion to appeal to others who have a need to be morally "superior" to others. 

Obermann is manipulative and exploitive.  He seeks to not only condemn the president, but to appeal to people who are not white and people who are Muslim.  It is not only insulting to "people of color" and "Muslims", it is exploitive and gives insight into his own association with deception.  

From Richard Hall's documentary on Madeleine McCann, we saw many commentators who could not study Statement Analysis.  They "know" Madeleine was kidnapped and is alive today and they "know" that disagreeing with them is "hateful" towards the parents.  They "know" this to be so.  

It becomes evident in an ongoing process. 

They learn basic principles. 

They apply the principles to OJ Simpson and see: he killed Nicole and he lied. 

They then apply the principles to Michael Jackson and see:  he molested not only the claimed victims, but many more. 

They apply the same principles to Casey Anthony and see that she killed her daughter, Caylee and lied about it. 

And on and on this goes...

but then they see that the same application of principle to their pet case or narrative driven ideology means "deception detected" and refuse to believe it.  

Instead of presenting arguments as to why PERSON X is really truthful, they go to the moral narcissism and say, 

"If you do not agree with me, you are mentally ill and are so morally deplorable, that I must silence you."

I often ask people what they would think of the science of Statement Analysis if I told them that disagreeing with me reveals that they are suffering from phobia and are morally reprehensible.  It is met with laughter.  

Laughter is, sometimes, the best response to absurdity.  

If you consider enrollment in training, you must be prepared to discern truth from deception. 

This presupposes that truth exists. 

We have some exciting announcements upcoming for trainings for 2018.  

If you are thinking of expanding your knowledge, building your resume and gaining traction for your career, consider enrolling in our Complete Statement Analysis course by December 31, 2017, for savings.  

Part one of Richard Hall's documentary as a sample of Statement Analysis' use to a general audience:


rob said...

IF Trump had said, after the LV killing spree, "I'm glad that SOB is dead, so we won't have to kill him" he would have also been attacked for that. and probably by the same person.
People have decided to attack Trump no matter what, and that is exactly what they are doing.
Forget the un-employment is at its lowest in years, that there are help wanted signs on every corner, the stock market is at record highs, none of that matters and is not even talked about in the news.
And then some people want to give Obama credit for all that, when Obama didn't take the blame for anything in his 8 years, he blamed it all on George W.
Me and my 401K are loving Trump. I'll say it if no one else will.

Habundia Awareness said...

If you acknowledge that gender is formed in the come people are being given a certain gender by their genitals, instead of how their brain works? And if it is formed in their brains, then there can certainly be something 'wrong' with it.
In nature there is lots of 'failure' to find. Just look at shapes of plants, they are not identical, perfect or without if nature is capable of making 'not perfectly' creatures......why would gender never be at fault?
And what does our food with our genetics? What does it contribute to the process of human-construction? What does it to the cells that are needed to create a human (egg cells/sperm)?
I am wondering how much influence this has on the process from egg/sperm to a baby

What about those people who have chronic mental issues, which they are born with of have developed during their lifes? Would they not be able to apply principle (without their emotions?) Of would it depand on the kind of mental health issues and how severe they are?

Peter Hyatt said...


there is nothing he could say that would win the approval of MSM.

He proved that in both action and several speeches.

For example, he enacted Barak Obama's "Muslim ban" rather than his own. When Obama did it, there was no claims of racism or hatred.

in some speeches, he has used obamas' words as well as general patron's words.

No matter what he says, the hatred overrules logic.


Lucia D said...

Peter your analysis of the McCanns is the thing that got me interested in SA. Such a frustrating case to read about. Fascinating how their words give them away.