Friday, October 19, 2018

Statement Analysis Training: Challenging Oneself


Statement Analysis training teaches how to discern deception from truth. 

It is not easy, lest its training would be unnecessary. 

It is confrontational, as we follow truth; not narrative. 

It is uncomfortable if you "swim with the stream" of our culture, when our culture celebrates deception.  

I have received a lot of emotional feedback from this comment left. It is a powerful honest personal confrontation of self examination and observation. 

It is inspiring. 

Learning is confrontational. It is to make us uncomfortable.  This is its blessing; not its curse. 

When a science must silence scrutiny, it is unworthy of acceptance. When it is supported by ridicule, societal and professional pressure, it is further weakened. 

When free speech is declared "hate" speech and made off limits, we cease to learn and will yield to the tyranny of the mob. 

The need to redefine words indicates motive within deception. 

Education has, in vast majority, become indoctrination and literally a "safe space" for avoiding the confrontation necessary for learning.  As college budgets soar, education has waned. 

If the words, "that's not correct" triggers emotional shutdown, indoctrination is indicated and learning is exempted. 

Some of the best young minds today struggle with critical thinking. They have been told that "a + b = c" and can repeated readily, but cannot explain how it works, or how the formula was realized.  

They often repeat mantras championed by politicians who exploited soft target voters, from their professors who would not survive in the private sector. 

The need for pressure and even coercion reveals the inherent weakness of the ideology.  If your government mandates the words you use, the tyrannical exploitation is further than you realize. 

Then a societal  pressure is added.  

Since the politician said that disagreement is "hate" and "immoral"; no one wants to be the "bad" person. Hyphenated degrees have led to riches for only professors; not students. 

Without disagreement, we'd have no scientific advancement. 

In Statement Analysis, even the simple question, "Is this a male or female author?" brings an emotional halt.  Students fear being labeled "hateful sexist", "phobic" or even "Nazi" because they have been told, "social construct, social construct, social construct" about the physiological differences between a man and a woman. 

Next is the corporate media narrative which means "do not conserve truth" but to excite and inflame for the purpose of publicity. A desensitized public is shocked less and less, causing media to become increasingly outrageous and absurd.  

Then for some,  professional pressure is added. 

Therapists say one thing in private, but another in public. 

 Why?

If they intervene to save a patient's life, they could lose their license if they disagree with...

a politician. 

Media and Entertainment Elites 

Journalists seek to become the story; displacing the story and manipulating fact. The politicians follow quickly behind, regardless of the level of absurdity and dishonesty.  

Who is an "Elite"? 

Elites are those who are not subject to the consequences of the ideologies that they demand others submit to. 

They live safely behind walls and armed guards, while demanding others live in a borderless and indefensible world. They demand illegal immigration to be a "human right" while they do not live among those of whom they champion. They demand others send their children to schools while they send their own to private schools.  

They tell you that you are "morally superior" if you agree with them.  

This is emotional exploitation and uses moral narcissism to build and maintain group think. 

Media quickly reports what an entertainer says about politics, or an uneducated athlete' advice on voting. If an actress says that Snow White is mysogony and sexual assault, the media rushes to publicize.  Disengaged followers claim to "Believe the woman", without presumption of innocence, overruling the need for truth, evidence and proof, unless the accused is Keith Ellison, Bill Clinton or others in the protected class. Now, the women must be lying, including Juanita Brodderick. 

Mothers with sons shiver with the same fear that those who believe in the rule of law do, over what a false accusation may do. 

Genuine victims saw the publicity stunt of Christine Ford and how a man's reputation is forever shattered, and may now hesitate to come forward. 

All of this is our culture now.  

Political Correctness is deception. 

Those who employ it have made everything in life political. 

Working full time in deception detection, my politics are plain and tough to debate:

The last person you should trust with your social or private life, including sex, marriage, children, health, nutrition  retirement, medical, etc, is an elected official. 

The politician seeks his own and by using deception, ridicule, pressure and a complicit media, we lose; they win.  They care not if they bankrupt a county, state or nation; as long as they get votes. 

When you are told that you will be "morally superior" to others for agreeing with them, you are likely the soft target they seek. 


Who is the one who hates?  

In Statement Analysis, we often find:

Our "good guys" lied and our "bad guys" told the truth.  The "good guy" really did it; and the "bad guy" didn't.  

When the politician, Hollywood actress or media uses the phrase, "my truth", you're being lied to.  

When you allow emotion to overrule logic, you are allowing us to be divided unnecessarily. 

When we debate helping the poor, the means of help does not mean one of us is a "Nazi" and the other a saint.  This is the core of tribal politics in America.  It divides. 

Pigmentation does not infuse us with wisdom.  


Education is confrontational.  This is the excitement of learning: you cannot grow unless you change.  

Training is not just for law enforcement and military intelligence. It is for human resources, therapists, counselors, social workers, journalists, bloggers, truth seekers, negotiators, businesses, etc. 

It is for discernment minded critical thinkers.  


Ceri is a special man. He has touched upon some deep points and exposes his own journey.  Note that it is ongoing and without conclusion. It is as messy as life itself. The reaction to this comment has been overwhelming as many have seen their own selves in Ceri's words.  Every life is worthy of examination or analysis. I love to read autobiographies.  I respect those who do not conceal weakness; as weakness or fragility is something we share in common.  




"About a year ago, I found out about statement analysis. I've been hooked ever since.

Back then, I was fairly close to an SJW - I really did believe in Obama and #metoo and black lives matter. I cried when Trump got into the Whitehouse. I voted for Jeremy Corbyn. I campaigned on identity politics. I did my PhD in a gender studies field. I didn't believe in monogamy, and I was for higher taxation and nationalisation of public services (railways, water, banks etc), higher welfare payments... I was in favour of abortion on demand up until the end of the first trimester, and in some cases up until birth. I said awful things as though they were a badge of honour, like calling the murder of unborn children "basic medical care." I could go on, but you get the picture.

I started to read your blog several months before I started your course. Since then, I've faced a series of "forks" in the road. On the one hand, I either have to jettison a long held belief, or on the other hand, I have to convince myself that a valid piece of analysis is somehow wrong. Each one of the beliefs I outlined above has gone through that process, and not one of them has survived intact.

I came back to re-read and comment here, because this post blew me away back in May. It is the most empathic, forthright, discerning and moral thing I have ever read about the experience and impacts of sexual abuse. You spoke directly to me. You have listened to victims and not just got inside their language, but got inside their experience. It is undeniable.

But...

At the time of first reading of this article, I believed that straight white males (with Republican views) didn't care about the experiences of victims, and weren't capable of empathy (towards victims in particular, but in general as well). By the way, I also believed that it wasn't racist or sexist to believe such a thing - go figure.

The two things were incompatible. It felt like a traffic jam in my brain for a week. Which was true? Were you not really empathic? Discerning? Was it a trick of some sort? If so, how did you pull it off? Or, on the other hand, had I spent my whole life believing a big fat lie about white males? Maybe a whole bunch of lies? And what did your race have to do with it anyway? And didn't you do pro bono work on behalf of victims as well? How could I square that with you being a straight white male republican?

Looking back, I don't know why it was such a struggle. They were obvious lies, but they were so seductive. I wanted to hold on to my dearly held personal beliefs, in the face of the evidence. Strange that I should have wanted to hold onto it, when I knew what it was.

Almost everything I've learned in statement analysis has brought me to a similar kind of fork. It's possible that I may meet more of them. I'm still an atheist, for example - although your post on "everybody having a religion in statement analysis" was a push towards the realisation that my values aren't as rational/secular as I believed, and have their roots in the Judeo Christian tradition. Right now, I can't imagine having a religious conversion to the extent where I believe in a god of any sort - but I'm not ruling out changing my mind.

Anyway, Peter, thank you. Thank you for your courage and your commitment to the truth, and thank you for lifting the scales from my eyes. It hasn't been an easy process, but it's been a necessary one - and I hope it's not over yet.
"

24 comments:

Paul said...

This is a powerful post.

Ceri Black, if you're interested in using statement analysis to investigate God, cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace has done some of this --

My journey toward Christianity began when I examined the gospels in order to uncover the words of Jesus. I was interested in Jesus as nothing more than a source of ancient wisdom and my curiosity about him caused me to begin sifting through the New Testament gospels. I was immediately struck by the appearance of what I call “unintentional eyewitness” support; a feature I often see in multiple accounts from eyewitnesses at crime scenes. This caused me to examine the accounts in much more detail and I eventually applied principles of Forensic Statement Analysis to the gospel of Mark.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/how-can-the-gospels-be-eyewitness-accounts-if-they-include-things-the-writers-didnt-see/

He goes over this in his book "Cold-Case Christianity."

rjb said...

I can relate to Ceri. I started reading this blog while simultaneously choosing to immerse myself in SJW culture. I *wanted* to be on the SJW side, largely out of rebellion about the way I was raised (pathetic in one's late thirties I know. I have issues.) I knew that there was absolute truth and in my heart I believed in absolute truth, but I had a desire to be more "open-minded" and "tolerant." I wanted gender to be subjective, I wanted abortion to be a rational choice, I wanted the "patriarchy" to be the bad guys, I wanted transgender people to be considered normal and simply misunderstood. Reading here has forced me to confront the fact that truth is truth and having an emotional desire for things to not be true doesn't change reality.

After following the blog for approximately two years, I have become not only more understanding of and on board with the values that I was taught growing up, but I am also better able to defend them. I have made huge strides in my ability to ask good questions about the information on being presented with and determining the agenda of the person providing the information that I am being presented with. I am better prepared to engage in conversations with people who disagree with me. It has been life changing.

Peter Hyatt said...

Rjb,

Humility is a powerful tool.

The most elite of analysts I have gotten to known are extraordinary in their quest for truth. It shines through their humility. They are the least likely to fall in love with their own views.

I've learned much; unlearned much and are left missing my parents and with a huge hole of what I don't yet know.

It is thrilling.

I appreciate your post.

Best,
Peter

Jase said...

To continue from Peter's post I will point out George Orwell's book 1984. Oceania (a totalitarian state in the book) created their own language called Newspeak. The purpose of he language was "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.".

Do you see any similarity with today? If you wish to read Orwell's own explanation if that language and the political ideology behind it read here;

https://web.archive.org/web/20130217000821/http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html

Buckley said...

This is a good read that gets more directly at what Orwell was satirizing: the abuse of power, which happens left, right, and in between.

Notes on Nationalism

Buckley said...

The link: http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

Lucia D said...

I too am grateful for finding the blog and deciding to study SA with Peter. It truly is life changing! It has been the most rewarding thing I have taken on in many years.

Anonymous said...

I've got something I'd like somebody with SA experience to give me feedback on. I'll type out the phrase I'm curious about before giving more context.

Man on trial: "I didn't do anything" [pause] "wrong".

The man was religious and if he followed this faith in one of the more extreme varieties, I suppose he would be telling the truth. That was the moment that I, as a juror, felt in my gut he was guilty. It just felt like a peak at the truth. It felt like a man using some sort of fragile construct he built internally to convince himself he was not guilty.

Full context:

I was on a jury that ultimately found a man guilty of routinely raping his underage niece. He was a westernized Muslim born in Canada and living both here and in the UAE. It all occurred in a large house with many different branches of the family sharing the house. The niece was the only mixed race member of the household, her mother was a diagnosed bipolar white women who was long out of the picture.

The entire experience sits with me to this day, two years later. Even though I truly believed, to the legal extent a juror must, that he was guilty based on a variety of evidence and testimony... I still struggle with the experience. It's hard to watch TV shows that deal with similar crimes.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I've got something I'd like somebody with SA experience to give me feedback on. I'll type out the phrase I'm curious about before giving more context.

Man on trial: "I didn't do anything" [pause] "wrong".

the rest of his testimony or statement would need to be looked at as well since taking out one phrase is not how SA should be approached.

below is what just that phase might look like analyzed.

a) for starters he did not deny the allegation.
b) "anything" is not what he was accused of doing. it is a vague and passive way of avoiding the specific allegation.
c) the pause shows a need to think about his answer, something deceptive people often do. it could be self censoring. some people pause in speaking all the time so that must be looked at as well.
d) the word "wrong" is subjective and people justify their actions. this is common in deception.
e) "wrong" is not a denial of the act he was charged with. he may justify using his or his religions interpretation of his acts or his own moral outlook.



the phrase "I didn't do anything" [pause] "wrong". is not a reliable denial. one would not convict on this alone while it does have the indications of deception. a follow-up question would be what did he mean by "anything" and what constitutes "wrong".



Ceri Black said...

"Fall in love with their own views" is such a telling phrase.

It captures something about why it's been such a painful process. I've had to discover I was in love with a lie.

It not been completely dissimilar to finding out about my wife's affair. What I thought I loved is not what I thought it was.

Your good opinion, and this article, mean a lot to me, and I thank you.

It has been a hard year in all sorts of ways, and even though we have never met, your honesty and forthright advice, generously given, have helped me get through it. You told me the truth when nobody else would or could, and I'll always be grateful for that.

Ceri Black said...

Oh dear, is this the start of something?

I'm almost afraid to look - it might be too much of a blow to find out I've been wrong about EVERYTHING.

Thanks for the tip, though. I'll check it out when I'm feeling brave.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I have been reading and learning from your blog for about two years now. I don't visit this site very often, maybe once every few weeks or months, so the way that I've been coming here has been to type "statement analysis" into Google and go from there since your site is at or near the top of the Google search results.

During the Kavanaugh hearing I visited this site and was surprised to find your contemporary analysis of Dr. Ford's testimony. (Usually your analyses of high-profile cases are done long after the fact.) Your analysis was, as always, very thoughtfully and carefully done. It was the first time I read about the possibility that Dr. Ford had suffered early childhood sexual abuse (the 'little girl' voice being a key piece of evidence), and it was very convincing.

Today I typed "statement analysis" into Google to pull up your site as usual. However your site has been completely removed from Google's search results. I tried several different words and phrases to find your blog but nothing worked. The only search that pulled up this website in Google was typing in the exact name of the blog.

When I opened up DuckDuckGo however and typed the same phrase "statement analysis" this blog was once again at the top of the search results.

Let me emphasize: since the Kavanaugh hearings, this blog has been *completely* removed from Google search results. It didn't get moved down a few rankings (which happens) - it's just gone. There were no other new websites about statement analysis displacing it, all the other sites getting pulled up were otherwise the same. Only your site was missing. It appears as though your analysis of Dr. Ford's testimony angered someone at Google and they had your website 'tweaked' so it disappeared.

This level of censorship is disturbing. I am a Democrat who believes in the First Amendment and the value of free speech, even speech I disagree with.

It is evil that Google has removed this valuable website from its search engine results because you wrote a blog post that the people at Google didn't like. I am sorry that this erasure was done to you, and am even sorrier that folks seeking to learn about Statement Analysis via Google won't be able to find it anymore. Sorry this happened and I wish there were some sort of accountability for Google where I could report them for this despicable behavior.

Alex said...

It comes up on my Google search.

Alex

John mcgowan said...

OT:

I believe her (911 Call).

She goes on to say

Snipped:

"It was a drunk and dramatic misunderstanding," Jenelle told E! News exclusively on Friday. "Everything is great...We are totally fine."

https://www.eonline.com/news/978740/teen-mom-2-s-jenelle-evans-breaks-silence-after-husband-s-alleged-assault

Jenelle Eason’s 911 call and transcript

Jenelle Eason’s 911 call from the alleged assault at the hands of her husband David Eason over the weekend has been released in which Jenelle sobs throughout as she tells the operator that David pinned her to the ground and may have broken her collarbone.

We have the audio of the 911 call as well as a full transcript below, but in brief summary, Jenelle states that David had been drinking and at some point Jenelle says he “pinned me down on the ground” in the yard. “And I think I heard my f**king collarbone crack,” Jenelle says through tears. “And I can’t move my arms.”

Jenelle reveals that her four children are in the house asleep at the time, and although it sounds like voices can be heard in the background, she tells the operator that David left with a friend. She later responds to someone talking to her and tells the operator that it is her “ex” who “just came back in the house.”

Jenelle then says that her ex is “trying to convince me to hang up” and is telling her: “Oh, it’s OK. Oh, it’s OK.” Not long after that, the operator hangs up.




In case you missed our previous post, police officers and an ambulance were initially dispatched, but the ambulance was recalled before it arrived. The police reportedly spoke with Jenelle and advised her of her rights, but she did not want to press charges. Unfortunately, the officers did not fill out a report, so it is unknown exactly what took place. It is assumed that there was not enough visible evidence, as far as injuries sustained by Jenelle, to arrest David without her cooperation or the corroboration of a witness.

Jenelle was later taken to a hospital in a private vehicle.

Here is the 911 call followed by a complete transcript:

Cont.

John mcgowan said...

Cont

OPERATOR: 911, where is your emergency?

JENELLE: [SOBBING] My God. Sorry. My name is Jenelle Eason, I’m at [address redacted] and my husband he just assaulted me. He pinned me down on the ground and [inaudible then more sobbing] I’m sorry. In the yard. And I think I heard my f**king collarbone crack. And I can’t move my arms. I can’t.

OPERATOR: And you said your first name is Jenelle? Is that what you said?

JENELLE: Yes. Eason. E-A-S-O-N.

OPERATOR: And where is your husband at now?

JENELLE: He is here at the house and he’s been drinking. And I think he got violent because he was drinking. And I’m recovering from a surgery on Monday and [still sobbing] I’m sorry.

OPERATOR: That’s OK. What is your husband’s name?

JENELLE: It’s David. David Eason. [sobbing] I can’t breathe!

OPERATOR: We’re going to get police and an ambulance headed that way Jenelle, OK? Just stay clear from him. Does he have any weapons?

JENELLE: No he doesn’t. I don’t know. I don’t know what he has, but I have four kids and they’re in the house with me right now. And they’re all sleeping.

OPERATOR: OK, I’m going to let them know that four kids are there.

JENELLE: Yeah, and they’re all sleeping. I don’t know, I don’t know what to do. I’m [inaudible]




OPERATOR: I’m going to get the police around there to at least talk to you and help with this situation since he did what he did, and get an ambulance. How old are you Jenelle?

JENELLE: I’m 26.

OPERATOR: OK. And he just did this right now, right?

JENELLE: Yes.

OPERATOR: Are you outside and he’s inside?

JENELLE: Yes.

OPERATOR: OK. Is he far enough way from you now that he’s not going to be near you right now?

JENELLE: Yeah, I think — I think he left the house.

OPERATOR: OK.

JENELLE: [sobbing] I don’t know what to do right now.

OPERATOR: OK, you think he left the house? Do you think he got in the car and left?

JENELLE: Yeah, he left with his friend. Yes, he’s left with his friend. He left with his friend JD and I’m here at the house. I don’t know what to do.

OPERATOR: What kind of vehicle did he leave in?

JENELLE: I don’t know. I don’t know what kind of vehicle he left in. I don’t know.

OPERATOR: OK. Are you bleeding anywhere?

JENELLE: No I’m not, but my collarbone hurts so bad!

OPERATOR: OK. Alright, just be as still as you possibly can, we’re going to let them know what happened, you know, with the collarbone area, and they can check on you. They’re going to check on that area, OK? Now I need you to just —

JENELLE: What?

OPERATOR: Who’s that talking to you now?

JENELLE: That’s — that’s my — That’s my ex. He just came back in the house. He’s sit — He’s sitting here trying to convince me — he’s sitting here trying to convince me to hang up and trying to defend my — he’s, like, “Oh I’m trying to defend myself right now. Oh, it’s OK. Oh, it’s OK.”

OPERATOR: Alright, I just want to make sure you’re OK. Do you need to stay on the phone with me until help gets there?

JENELLE: [sobbing turns to high pitched wails] All that I know is that my collarbone hurts so bad. And that’s all —

OPERATOR: OK, I do have help that is going to be responding to you. Do you want me to stay on the phone you?

JENELLE: [sobbing] [inaudible] You can hang up.

OPERATOR: OK, if anything changes —

JENELLE: But I want them to come here, and I’ll answer the door, it’s OK. I’ll answer the door.

OPERATOR: OK. Alright, now if David comes back and he’s bothering you, you call us back, OK?

JENELLE: OK. Thank you so much.

OPERATOR: You’re welcome. Bye bye.

JENELLE: Bye.

https://starcasm.net/jenelle-911-call-audio-transcript/

John mcgowan said...

UPDATE – Jenelle spoke with E! News and said of the incident: “It was a drunk and dramatic misunderstanding…Everything is great…We are totally fine…We are feeling fine…Just taking time off social media…time to focus on ourselves and our family.”

More:

https://starcasm.net/jenelle-911-call-audio-transcript/

Anonymous said...

OT. I came across this article this morning. This man writes a 4-page statement about Cory "Spartacus" Booker sexually assaulting him in 2014.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/breaking-man-steps-forward-with-sexual-assault-allegations-against-sen-cory-booker-with-lawyer-response-to-gateway-pundit/
-Kitt

Trigger said...

I can relate to Ceri. There was a time when, I too, could accept lies that were in opposition to truth. I have slowly and painfully been accepting the truth about my distorted perspective that was fueled by the emotions of anger and guilt.

When I look at the facts, I can see where the truth has been twisted to fit my delusional attitudes.

This blog has helped me to uncover faulty thinking that has enabled me to believe lies that were used to deceive me.

I thank you, Peter, for my education in uncovering the deception.

Jase said...

Anon

That denial is classified as not reliable in the sense more data would be needed to conclude reliable or unreliable.

A Reliable Denial (RD) in SA has 3 components; the personal pronoun "I", the negative "did not/didn't" and the allegation in question.

Ella said...

Interesting video on McCann case, Peter

https://govtslaves.info/2018/10/22/five-creepy-facts-about-the-madeleine-mccann-case/

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

BREAKING: Tammy Moorer Found Guilty in Kidnapping of Husband’s Ex-Mistress Heather Elvis

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/tammy-moorer/tammy-moorer-verdict/

tania cadogan said...

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

BREAKING: Tammy Moorer Found Guilty in Kidnapping of Husband’s Ex-Mistress Heather Elvis


YAY

Trigger said...

Tammy Moorer......I read Peter's analysis of her. Peter was right about her in his posts. I'm glad that Heather Elvis and her family got justice.

Nadine Lumley said...

I fixed beliw:

It is not easy, otherwise its training would be unnecessary. 



P.s. in Canada we love our nationaL health care. Our gov. Does not control me nor my doctor. We are free to be single or unemployed as we are medically covered either way. It's pretty sweet and we are very happy with it.


.