Monday, February 4, 2019

Analysis: Ralph Northam

Racism, like any word in analysis outside of pronouns and articles, needs definition. 

In the culture borne by Judea Christian ideology, racism is a grievous transgression that warrants the seeking of forgiveness. In said ideology, it is forbidden.  

"Racism"  is not disagreeing with a politician's policy.  

In a free society, however, we recognize that the reciprocal "do unto others" cannot (or should not) be legislated by politicians and enforced by coercion. Where it is attempted, tyranny is historically indicated. This is why "communism" and "socialism" have always been identified as direct threats to western freedom. The latter being the former's little brother, howbeit without the use of violence...yet.  

We recognize that offense, itself, cannot be redefined as "hate speech" in order to quell disagreement. "Hate speech" in the sense of yelling "fire" in a theater causing the outworking of hate (injury, death) is already illegal.  We also have legal remedy for libel and slander. 

To shift the burden to "offense" is to make any and everything we disagree with "hate."  

I may not find it humorous to see people dressed up like me making my appearance entertainment, as I cannot control others; but I can control my response.  This is the lesson our mother's taught us as we went off to school, "sticks and stones may break our bones..."

We are the ones who give or deny the power to those who seek to offend.  Ask a police officer who hears all manner of taunts every day if being "offended" should result in government action. 

Was racism intended by Ralph Northam's costume?  

What of his nickname, "coonman"


Statement Analysis 

Statement Analysis does not interpret but listens. The Analytical Interview is legally sound and it is successful. It does not interpret but allows the subject to define his own language. This is "best practice" in child interviewing, and for those trained, it is best practice in sex crimes, yet successful in all interviewing, from criminal to employment. 

We have a life long familiarity with our own words. This is why when a polygraph is properly administered, using the subject's own words, it is at or near 100% reliable. Where we see error or inconsistency, is when we see linguistic contamination, or the introduction of language from the examiner. 

When a subject does multiple interviews, or has to be re-interviewed, we not only have to deal with contamination, but we do, on the positive, often get to hear the subject define, or make clear, his own words. 

"Boy"

I use the word "boy" to demonstrate this principle.  

In the audience, the word "boy" generally gets a 21 year spread of interpretation. 

For some officers, the "boy" is a new born. 

For older officers, the "boy" is her 21 year old son, in Afghanistan, in the U.S. military. 

Child protective investigators and caseworkers often receive tedious but effective training to ask children what "______ looks like."

"I play wrestle with Daddy Ronald."

Rather than presume this to be nefarious sexual abuse or affection play wrestle, the trained interview will ask:

"What does 'wrestle' look like?" 

"Who is 'Daddy Ronald'?"

"What does 'Daddy Ronald' say?" and so on. 

Sexual abuse investigations share something in common: Perpetrators change language to conceal (deception) their crimes.

In a particularly case where the child was being sexually abused, I asked the child, "What do you do after school?" as her mother was at work. Mother had history of meeting men and moving them into her home, subjecting her child to strangers. In this case, the newest "Daddy Ronald" was the babysitter. The child's acting out caught the attention of an astute teacher. 

"We play Monopoly..."

I play Monopoly.  Kindergarten aged children do not play Monopoly.  

"What does Monopoly look like?"

The answer was sickening. 

"When do you play Monopoly?"

Follow up questions are to utilize the child's language; not our own. 

"Racism" is a term that has lost its meaning due to politics.  

I do not believe that someone who dresses up as another race is necessarily racist. Teenage boys do lots of stupid things, not from malice, but from the reaction of outrage. It is a basis within humor. 

It does not mean that it is not offensive, nor even that the teen can be racist. 

It means that some may due so out of racism, while others may do so for the attention that outrage brings.  

Ralph Northam's photos may or may not mean he is racist. Better to follow his language. 

Upon viewing his language, there are several considerations.  The first being his use of "racist" as a term of derision in his campaign. 

His opponent wanted security in the borders as the gang "MS 13" has a strong presence in Virginia.

Rather than agree with his opponent, Northam made repeated assertions that his opponent was "a racist."



Abortion and Racism 

Abortion was championed originally to limit the number of black children being born. It is ironic that this case came together as it it, in the scope of 48 hours. 



Last week, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, MD, came out in support of legislation that some call "birth abortion" and "post birth abortion."

In listening to him, the attempt to portray his words as "out of context" was deceptive in its assertion. The video was not cut.  When he made this attempt, he made his position, as the governor and as a doctor, clear. 

It was later revealed that Ralph Northam, a medical doctor,  received almost $2,000,000 in campaign donations from the abortion industry's most profitable organization, Planned Parenthood. 

 WTOP-FM interview, he said the position on a woman aborting the child while dilating was  “was really blown out of proportion.

From this 

“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician—more than one physician, by the way—and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.”

He gives a hypothetical response which is appropriate given the question about "what if a woman is dilating...?" 

He should not be cited for the hypothetical scenario language ("may") yet calls our attention, via emphasis with "by the way."

It is to be noted that Northam’s response, however, is inconsistent with the actual language of the legislation. HB 2491 specifically eliminates the requirement of more than one physician’s “consent”:
The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.

This is an added emphasis, but it is not clear if it is an error on his part, or deception.  It may be, but it is not conclusive in the language. 

His use of "fetus" is consistent with the generally stated position of Planned Parenthood. 


Additionally, research does not support the common pro-abortion rights narrative that late-term abortions are performed primarily in cases of “severe deformities” or when the unborn baby is determined “non-viable.”

study released in 2013 by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, found women seeking both first-trimester and late-term abortions provided the same reasons for delaying their abortions, including “not knowing about the pregnancy,” “trouble deciding about the abortion,” and “disagreeing about the abortion with the man involved.”

For women in the late-term abortion group, the most commonly cited reason for delaying the procedure was ‘raising money for the procedure and related costs.’”

It is not known here if Northam is ignorant of the research (no deception) or if he is attempting to deceive.  


H then gives us insight into his personal subjective dictionary. We now see the confidence increase as he went from "we" to "I" in the following: 



If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So, I think this was really blown out of proportion. We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.

The pronoun "I" produced the word "exactly." This is an increase in confidence. It thus throws doubt upon the error v deception above. He says "I can tell you" which suggests that there were things that preceded this that "we could not tell you."

When a liar is fabricating and has the opportunity to make a truthful point, he is very likely to avail himself of such. 

Recall when the mother of missing/murdered 13 year old Hailey Dunn was describing the night the child was killed.

"I did see her in her bed, but I did not touch her."

She did not say, "she was in her bed" nor even "I saw her in her bed..."

but "I did" is to affirm with emphasis that which did not warrant such.  

Did you notice the negative? 

 "I did see her in her bed, but I did not touch her." 

"She was in her bed" would emphasize or focus upon the "missing" child, yet the subject focuses upon her own self.  This was what indicated her immediate guilt: alibi building on the Nancy Grace Show.  

Here she tells us what she saw and what she did not do. 

The word 'but" is used to counter what "I did" and the "rule of the negative" elevates what she did not do:  she did not touch the dead body.  

Deceptive people relieve some level of stress by emphasizing something they know to be true while being overall deceptive. Keep this in mind when less than 24 hours later, Northam would have more explaining to do. 

Back to his statement.  What of the "fetus"?

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. 

From a doctor, "the infant would be delivered" has the change from "fetus" to "infant."

If he had hoped to claim anything other than infanticide, the following words reveal insight into his personal subjective internal dictionary: 


The infant would be kept comfortable. 

Here the infant's living status quality is addressed. He is in a hypothetical response (appropriate) and now gives human comfort to a human ("infant" in his language).


What comes next in his statement?


The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. 

It is no longer a "pre born" or a "fetus" but an "infant" who is alive outside of his or her mother.  

It is now the "desire" that decides if the child, who has been made "comfortable", lives or is put to death.  He uses passivity as the means of death.  


"So, I think this was really blown out of proportion. "

In this sense, it is true.  The question was about aborting a "fetus" that is still within the mother's womb, but that she had only begun to dilate.  

Ralph Northam took the hypothetical scenario outside the boundary of the question. In this he took it further (inflation) than what the called for. 

He then used a conservative talking point:  


We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.

Analysis Conclusion

The subject is deceptive about infanticide. This is "who" the subject is in 2019.  Having received almost $2,000,000 dollars from the abortion industry leader Planned Parenthood, the bill not only  allows for increased abortion profits, but for infanticide. His attempt to deny this was not only deceptive, but it affirmed the accusation of supporting infanticide. 


Hours later, a photo from 1984 was published in which he was in seen in offensive costume. 

Here is his statement. 


“I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now. This behavior is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military, in medicine, and in public service. But I want to be clear, I understand how this decision shakes Virginians’ faith in that commitment.”

In training, investigators and analysts are taught to trust pronouns. They are instinctive, intuitive and 100% accurate. We use the pronoun "I" so many millions of times, we are efficient at brain-tongue processing.

Conclusion: he is in the photo. 

Note the statement begins with "I", increasing psychological presence.

Note he takes ownership of the decision for the costume. 

Note embedded (and reliable) pronoun admissions.  "...decision I made" which speaks to the period of time before the photo where brain processing ("should I wear this?") took place. 

Consider that either costume would take both imagination and physical effort. This is the investment of thought and emotion (psychological).

Either costume would require the investment  time to obtain and to adorn.  

If he is not one of these two photos, he knows there is a photo of him dressed as such that may come out.  Why?  Because of the pronoun "ownership" he reports. It is coming from experiential memory. 

He went on to "crowd sourcing guilt", similar to the little boy who claims innocence to his mother because "everyone did it, but the teacher only picked on me!"

It is not only crowd sourcing guilt, but it is a psychological shift of blame and a justification for faux righteous indignation as a victim...

from the lips of a 6 year old boy. 

Northam said that his growth mirrored the growth of "the commonwealth."

This is to move from singular responsibility, to "crowd sourcing guilt" of an entire racist entity. 

It is an affirmation of his own guilt.  

He could have said "this was a stupid and thoughtless stunt" rather than the oft-cited fraudulent, "I take full responsibility."

In statement analysis, we note those who take or own responsibility versus those who have the need to state that they are "taking" responsibility.  This is evident in Employment Analysis of recovering addicts. They do not state that they are taking personal responsibility; they simply take it. There is a stark difference.  

In his later denial, he said that he had consulted with classmates and family and that it is not him in the photo and he is doing an investigation.  

The initial apology shows pronoun ownership of the event. 

He then went on to not only introduce the entire state and history of Virginia "the commonwealth" as to water down guilt and blame his culture, but he then invoked a deceptive tangent. 

Tangent Deceptions

To change the topic is a form of avoidance. It is something manipulative personalities do well, but honest people often struggle with when they lie. 

Recently, a supervisor received a report that his employee was not out working but out partying on a business trip. 

"You were seen smoking marijuana while you were supposed to be working..."

The subject said, "Me? Where would I get marijuana? Where in ____ city would I find marijuana to buy?"

The allegation produced a sensitive response which its first words indicate the strategy the employee is very likely to take when facing internal discipline:

"Me?"

He will embrace the role as victim of some form of injustice. 

Next, he uses questions to move the focus of words from himself and his action to purchasing and the location of a large city.  He went from small ("me") to large ("city").  

It is something he is comfortable doing and in employment analysis, this would be someone flagged for "low personal responsibility." 

Northam: 

"I am not the person in that photo," Northam said at an afternoon news conference.
He apologized, however, for the photos being on a page with his name on it.

Gnostic Distancing Language 

It is common for guilty people to say "that is not who I am" (in some form) rather than 
"I did not do it."

"That doesn't sound like me..."

This is an ancient (Gnostic) form of both denial and deception, as if there is an innocent (and often tall and handsome) person inside of me trying to come out. "The 'real' me did not do _____, but that was not the 'real' me who did _____. I'm not a thief. I am not a violent person."  Human nature comforts itself with this padding of the conscience yet reveals the guilt via;

need to persuade --self and police, rather than deny the action. 

Northam, at age 59, employs this same technique. 

"I am asking for the opportunity to earn your forgiveness," the governor said, adding, "I am far from perfect and I can always strive to do more."

Several points here:

1. If this is a fake photo, he is the victim.
2.  If it is not him, he is also a victim (genuinely) as falsely accused. 





"The reason I so vividly don't remember is because it didn't happen," 

a. note the negative
b. note the need to explain why he does not remember 

Consider "it didn't happen" is passive from one who has used passivity, yet works in "passive voice" the psychological mindset of distancing language away from guilt.  It is a psychological term, not a grammatical, used to enter into the mindset of the subject as he has an ongoing need to remove or distance himself, seen in his words, from guilt. 

As in deception mindset  he does what the pattens call for:

"Get the heated attention off this topic" by moving to larger quantities, but then he does something he likely considered to be clever. 

He preempted the next accusation knowing a photo may now surface: 

"I did darken my face to dress up like Michael Jackson."

An ingratiating journalist asked him if he could "moon walk" of which he appeared to be stopped by his wife from doing so. 

This is important because it speaks to his expectation of a friendly press. 

Conclusion:

Ralph Northam "saw" racism in his opponents' policies against illegal break ins to the nation by criminal gang members. Those who "see" racism may be exploiting but may be racist themselves.  Those who "see racism everywhere", do so because it proceeds from their own selves.

"From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

Planned Parenthoods' origins of eliminating black births was in stock with the KKK's ideology of racism. 

That this organization would donate money to him only to have him promote their interests is not lost on the public. 

The awkwardness of his language first in explanation of infanticide and then in his yearbook photos is, for the non trained, the level of discomfort they sense in liars.  

His reaction to the journalist indicated his level of comfort with the press.  This, too, would cause him to lower his guard and speak freely, allowing us to obtain information. This is the contempt of which is evidenced in expectation that his audience will believe whatever it is he says because he is "morally" superior in his popular or trendy positions. 

That he would remember and then suddenly not remember an event that took time and effort (costume idea, design, adornment) and took effort to remove (recall his remark on how difficult it was to remove black face), tell the untrained that he is lying.

That he would, as a physician who took an oath to "do no harm" advocate for infanticide should be considered in the "need" (analysis) of morally charged platitudes so often heard. 

Those who seek ethical or moral policy are often low on the language of such.  

Why?

Because it is unnecessary. 

It is the unnecessary language of morals or ethics that audiences should focus upon. In analysis, we flag for sensitivity. 

The unnecessary language of the "higher moral position" in a statement often indicates to the contrary. 

In a criminal interview, the unnecessary  "sermon" or "moral lecture" often means:  we have the right suspect.  And if he "didn't do it", he did something else that triggers such language.  We often solve attendant crimes simply by listening. 














26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Peter, if northham resigns, he will be succeeded by his lieutenant governor Justin Fairfax. A professor in California is alleged sexual assault by Fairfax. Justin Fairfax has issued a denial on Twitter but it seems very flimsy. Could you please analyze his statement?

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/stanford-fellow-hints-at-possible-justin-fairfax-sex-assault/

Anonymous said...

Great post!

Northham's deception is so well hidden by his superior morality, his superior accomplishments, his superior intellect, and his superior communication skills, that the fact of him receiving millions of dollars from Planned Parenthood for legalizing abortions for late term pregnancies is almost unbelievable.

Surely a man of his superior talents would never be influenced by money to promote a deadly or controversial agenda. He would never be photographed wearing a blackface costume with a slogan using the word "coon" even if was a silly stupid thing to do. It's just not him or who he is now.

Another deceiver ferreted out by his own statements.

Anonymous said...

The Planned Parenthood video that came out some years ago was horrifying to me, and I could not understand how any human being could defend those practices. It put me off the Democrats, I could not believe what I was hearing, it was disgusting and infuriating to see people turning a blind eye or justifying it in any way.

I gave birth to a baby at 25 weeks, he has significant disabilities due to preterm birth, but I had firsthand experience, seeing him born.
I cannot imagine seeing a baby born and not giving it support to survive.

I have also seen how the medical profession devalues a life when there is significant brain injury at birth. He is still a human being and is loved.

When above Northam says that the infant would be "kept comfortable" I can only think of a dying person being kept comfortable, that is how they term it, while the inevitable occurs.

There is something horribly wrong with any ideology that supports killing babies. Isn't that much obvious?

And yes, I know about eugenics and Margaret Sanger's real agenda. I believe it is the same agenda today, part of the New World Order.

SS

Mike Dammann said...

vividly
that word in combination with a passive negative is notable
previously he had described an incidence from memory, so he is not sure anyone will buy him now denying participating in the event
vividly is strong
"I vividly remember", not "I vividly don't remember"
It makes no sense and indicates desperation in his thought process to keep listeners from letting logical thinking lead them to the conclusion that he is lying.

Anonymous said...

OT

Newly released tape of Michael Jackson addressing allegations of child molestation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6650103/Michael-Jackson-squirms-nervously-giggles-jokes-hes-questioned-molesting-boys.html

rob said...

Nobody thinks this guy is telling the truth. No body.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Just a few quick points:

Having lived in Virginia in 1984, dressing up in blackface or a KKK member was neither "normal" nor the socially-acceptable standard for the state, nor its citizens.

He's essentially asserting that he did not see his page of the student yearbook lauding his medical school graduation until he borrowed a yearbook from someone else. Is that the expected, that a med school grad wouldn't even take a peek at the student-published (i.e. peer-published) yearbook featuring the graduates? Northam's also a VMI grad. Anyone who's in any way familiar with VMI can attest that VMI graduates are very proud of their accomplishments, wearing them like a badge of honor (pun intended). Being that VMI cadets did march from Lexington to New Market to "hold the line" for the Confederacy during the Civil War and commemorate that event with an annual march to New Market, I do think there could have been a culture of racism during his years at VMI. (https://www.vmi.edu/archives/civil-war-and-new-market/battle-of-new-market/new-market-ceremony-history/)

The picture on Northam's page in the student-publication should have disqualified him to receive a medical license. The picture was unmistakably racist in nature and particularly disturbing in that Northam undoubtedly treated patients of color during his residency (particularly in Norfolk VA). It is inexcusable for Eastern Virginia Medical School to award a doctorate of medicine to a candidate espousing racial prejudice in any form, particularly just prior to said candidate graduating and preparing to go into practice. The State of Virginia should open a full investigation of Northam's medical practice, in view of the picture, his assuming responsibility, and his subsequent denial of responsibility. How can any of his former patients in the Army, at John Hopkins, or the Commonwealth of VA be confident they were treated equally or even to the best of NOrtham's ability, in light of such prejudice?

To assert second day that he had no knowledge of the picture being on his page/no involvement with the student-publication actually puts him on worse footing. It is nearly inconceivable that he could have not known that picture was on his page in that yearbook. That would mean he did not look at the yearbook and that that none of his classmates or friends spoke to him in any capacity about his page. If, in fact, the racist picture was on his page without his permission, he made zero effort to seek its removal or force a retraction or to take action against those publishing the allegedly unauthorized material(lawsuit for defamation of character or libel as it is an image). If Northam is not in the photo, as he now asserts, we should see him lawyering up immediately and suing the yearbook staff for libel...particularly with his political career at stake (being Governor of VA is traditionally the stepping stone to the U.S. Senate).

By his behavior at the time of the incident (his initial admission), his post-incident behavior (waffling on responsibility), and his assertion that "this is not in keeping with who I am now", there is no way a person of color can be assured that this governor will protect their individual freedoms and rights as a Virginia citizen. He, in effect, admitted that he was indeed racist. He did not say that he is not racist or he is no longer racist. Instead, he fell back on his record-"“is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military, in medicine and in public service.”. Politicians often campaign ardently and vote the party platform, even though they themselves don't share those values, just to get elected and keep getting promoted within the party.

Lettice said...

The following is a direct quote from a famous actress (not Angelina Jolie)
Is it truthful?

"As mother of both an adopted child and my own birth-child, there is absolutely no difference in the huge amount of love I feel for both my children. I always knew I wanted to adopt a child and also have one of my own. There is no difference at all."

Martina said...

"The reason I so vividly don't remember is because it didn't happen,"
He not only does not remember something, he vividly does not remember it. This is almost comical.

Mike Dammann said...

"As mother of both an adopted child and my own birth-child, there is absolutely no difference in the huge amount of love I feel for both my children. I always knew I wanted to adopt a child and also have one of my own. There is no difference at all."

I look for unnecessary language. "own" is unnecessary. It indicates a closer connection. "Absolutely", "huge" and "both" (2nd time used in short statement) also are not needed. Her purpose is to convince. The statement isn't made without pressure.
"also have one of my own." does repeat "own" showing that her birth-child is considered her own without hesitation, but excluding the adoptive kid from being included in such feeling.

"There is no difference at all." repeats "no difference" and "at all" is also not necessary. The entire sentence is an unnecessary repetition of what she had already stated.

She isn't speaking freely. It would be good to have context. Was that a response to a specific question? What was the question? I cannot make a conclusion as more needs to be known.


But what stands out, I have highlighted.

General P. Malaise said...

Mike Dammann said...
"As mother of both an adopted child

the greater context would be good. she does need to persuade that there is no difference so it is likely there is a difference, the need to persuade indicates the opposite.

"I always knew I wanted to adopt a child and also have one of my own." she needs to tell us why, "I always knew .." is unnecessary and sensitive, "always" taking time to infinity.

she also lists the "adopted" first in both cases.

does she hold the "adopted" one in higher esteem, as a badge of moral superiority? or did her "birth-child" cause her difficulties?

in the second listing the "adopted" remains a "child" while the "birth-child" becomes "one of my own".

Anonymous said...

Christian doctrine holds that racism is a sin for which one should repent, but racism is not political issue and "cannot and should not be legislated" (i.e. separation of church and state). If racism shouldn't be legislated because it's a religious issue, then why, immediately following that stance, is there political discussion re abortion, when abortion is a also a religious view? I found Nothram's abortion views abhorant and I don't support it. My point is one Christian issue shouldn't be dismissed politically when other Christian issues have legislation in all 50 states; either one agrees with separation of church and state or not. It's our constitution, not a buffet to pick and choose.

Abortion wasn't originally championed to limit the number of black kids - women of color were forcibly sterilized by state eugenics programs to limit children. The founder of Planned Parenthood was involved in the eugenics movement and also thought birth control could be utilized in the same way but eugenics wasn't her main idea, it was that people should have the children they wanted. Her own writings said every black child count as a valuable contribution to America's future. I've heard of forced eugenics but not forced abortions (and just researched to ensure my memory serves me correctly).


The study linked in the article considers late term abortion 21 weeks gestation and researchers wrote they "know very little about third trimester abortions as their random samples at clinics found too few women seeking abortions after mid-second trimester." It wasn't referring to third trimester abortions as Northram's repulsive, graphic description was.

Only four doctors in the US perform third trimester abortions as of a few years ago. One was killed in mid to late-2000s. So even getting to a dr that would perform one is nearly impossible and should be against the law anyway imo (excluding incest, life-saving). No baby should ever be euthanized (what happens third trimester) because birth mom choose and elective abortion.

Sorry for the long reply but facts do matter, whether we agree with them or not. My opinion: Northam has proven himself a poor liar and should resign.

Lettice, Denmark said...

The actress is Michelle Pfeiffer. The context is that she is talking about being a mother. Her adopted child is bi racial, and she talks about raising a bi racial child.


I have four children, and I find it hard to believe that the love for someone elses biological child can be as strong as the love for your own biological child.

I know parents who have both, say it is so. However, I do not believe them. (Parents with no bio children are not relevant in this discussion).

It goes against nature and survival. But, have we (or, others, since I obviously have not..) evolved so much that biology does not matter that much anymore?
If Michelles house was on fire, and she could only save one child, who would it be?

Mike Dammann said...

"As mother of both an adopted child and my own birth-child, there is absolutely no difference"

She doesn't start with "I" making this statement weak and unreliable. She is telling us how mothers of both, bio and adopted children (should) feel generally.

Mike Dammann said...

Expected:
"I feel the same amount of love for both of my children."

Mike Dammann said...

"As mother of both AN adopted child and MY OWN birth-child"
also shows as important change within her language. "As mother of" is similar to an official statement. E.g. "as your attorney, I need to advise you to...".
She places herself within an official role when speaking about her adoptive child. When it comes to her biological child, the need is no longer there and she speaks as herself. She also starts taking full ownership of HER child which she didn't do in the beginning with her adoptive child.

Lilstr said...

Well said.

If the statement were:
"As a mother of both MY OWN adopted child and A birth-child"
the difference towards the two kids is even more blatant.

Mike Dammann said...

Actually "As THE mother" rather than "As A mother" or "As mother"

Mike Dammann said...

You are not just A mother to your children, but THE one and only mother. Not just "mother" (reminds me of the movie "Psycho", jk)
There is some heavy distancing going on.
Just "mother" is very general and removes taking personal ownership

Anonymous said...

Does statement analysis apply all across the board?

Like for example if i was having a conversation on Facebook private messenger with a friend and i noticed the Letter "I" missing and appearing again throughout a short-ish conversation?

I have also noticed the word "The" missing then appearing in the same conversation.

I have only began to notice this since i took interest in Statement Analysis...

Things are jumping out at me.

mom2many said...

Thank you for taking up the Northam story, Peter! It was so bizarre and unusual to me to hear him take ownership of the photo one day and try to deny it the very next. His at birth abortion defense is completely sickening! I hope there is an investigation into his medical practice. He certainly has opened himself up to complaints of malpractice.

Kimberly Smith said...

In reply to: Anonymous @ 12:10PM said...

Does statement analysis apply all across the board?
....I have only began to notice this since i took interest in Statement Analysis...
Things are jumping out at me.

Welcome to the Hotel California...
Or more simply put, yes, more often than not, imho.

Anonymous said...

Peter, the scandal surrounding Justin Fairfax is much more interesting. Would you please analyze not only his statement but also his victim's:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/us/politics/vanessa-tyson-statement.html

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said

Does statement analysis apply all across the board?

Like for example if i was having a conversation on Facebook private messenger with a friend and i noticed the Letter "I" missing and appearing again throughout a short-ish conversation?

I have also noticed the word "The" missing then appearing in the same conversation.

I have only began to notice this since i took interest in Statement Analysis...

Things are jumping out at me.


Hi,

This may help you

Dropped Pronouns and Text Speak

Although we have covered this before, it is helpful to review. Can statement analysis be applied to text messages?

Yes. Wherever there is communication and deception possible, analysis can be there too.

Below is a comment left where another commentator left a good response that I would like to expand upon.

Re: "Text messages and dropped pronouns. Peter,when i text a family member or friend it is rare for me to use the first person pronoun I. IE, Went to the shops,had coffee,be back soon... I know i am not distancing myself from them and i know have been were i have said i have been. So how does SA work when it comes to dropped pronouns in text messaging.??"

A helpful reader responded by correctly identifying that we look for a pattern.

In a text, pronouns are rare, but since texts are meant to communicate, they are subject to analysis and can be deceptive. In many texts, pronouns go missing.
"Gone to store. Love you."

What we can identify with this text is that text messaging is expected to be abbreviated greatly.
It is expected that pronouns will be missing.

So...

We take careful note when a pronoun does appear as being "very important."

"Gone to store. Need groceries. I will be home at 5"

Not knowing the person sending the text nor the recipient, my guess would be (if asked) that the home arrival time is an important piece of information, perhaps a reminder to be there, or don't be late, and so on.

There are studies currently ongoing as to the meanings of:

??? (see above)
?!?, !!!, ..., ...., and so on. As the research continues and shows consistency, I will publish it. Some of the other basics can be viewed, including text messages that make false claims, or that are in response to accusations.

The context is always important.


The astute reader left this at the end and it is worth quoting:

" PS-when you had coffee, was someone with you? -- that's usually an indicator that you were doing something social, particularly when you find it important to mention it. Have a great day"

Agreed!


http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2012/09/dropped-pronouns-and-text-speak.html

Anonymous said...

In reply to Kimberly Smith...

Thank you for the welcome.

It's very interesting and very eye opening.

I find it a little shocking when i notice these things but now i want to know more and more about statement Analysis.

Anonymous said...

In response to John Mcgowon :

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I think i understand what you are saying.

I have noticed the *I* used consistently then once moved over to a certain topic, same particular topic that includes another person, same person each time the *I* no longer appears.

There is a pattern of this.

I will put up parts of the conversation that i feel show this...

Me : you alive (persons name)

Person : Still alive .. just ! Sorry went out on beer .. with Peter was one of them impromptu things .. wasn’t going to drink at all

Me : that not dangorous when your taking antibiotics?

Person : No I checked it’s fine to drink with the ones I have

Me : ok cool
hope i get an invite to the wedding
did he ring you and ask you out?
am i asking the wrong questions?
you wanna do the draw / raffle for us today or?

Person : Yeah sure .. I think it’s on but will pop in and check :)

That was just a small part, i will put up some more soon...

Thank you...