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.
Ceri BlackOctober 17, 2018 at 8:28 AM
"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. "
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. "
