 |
| Sensitivity indicators noted |
What follows is posted for the sake of encouragement, for I believe that her own words, spoken privately and publicly, contain wisdom.
I have heard it said, when discussing the difference between wisdom and knowledge, that knowledge is the accumulation of facts; wisdom is knowing what to do with the facts. Lots of people can memorize text books and pass exams, but struggle to tie their own shoes, or get out of their own way.
With Statement Analysis, we have the ability to not only learn principle, committed to memory, but also to embrace thinking patterns, and learn from them.
In LSI, should you take the course, you will circle pronouns. You may not see the value immediately in this activity, but it will come.
Over the years, I have circled so many pronouns, that I can "see" in my 'mind's eye', circled pronouns while people speak to me. It has become visible to me.
This is the lead in to Kaaryn's advice: learning to think in ways, perhaps, that we don't normally tap into.
"As for my imagination, it's more that I'm highly visual. When I read a statement or hear testimony, I immediately see the events as a movie running in my head. I encourage everyone to hone their "inner movie maker" for it supports SA beautifully, especially in an 'on-the-fly' situation where one does not have the luxury of the words in front of them. Practice listening to others and running the movie of EXACTLY what they are saying. It can be tough, for your brain will try to create a picture that makes sense. In other words, it will try to smooth over the bumps, fill in the gaps. But don't let it. Make it a very literal movie. It's the same principle in SA. Analyze only the words that are used--nothing more, nothing less. Outside information/influence about the person is not allowed. The words must set the stage, create the characters and direct the action."
I believe, like so much else, that this can be learned, to a strong degree, by those of us who wish to apply ourselves.
How?
Concentration and Repetition.
The first (and biggest) step is to read Kaaryn's analysis, and then read it again. Go back over statements you've covered months, or even years ago. Set your mind to "see" or have, like a movie, the scene go by for you.
I'll spot you a personal example.
When I turned 30, I decided to learn a new sport: ice hockey.
I had always been an athlete, so turning 30 was a time I marked for change.
I could barely stand on skates, having not learned to skate as a youth, often clinging to the boards for support, but I enjoyed the challenge. I watched as young kids learned proper technique, and copied, practiced, and copied again. I received advice from famed Maine hockey coach Shawn Walsh, and, within 5 years, (and 50 lbs lighter) I was regularly scoring and playing in three different leagues. I went from "Free Willy" on ice, to keeping up with some young and chippie 22 year olds. I could skate forwards and backwards and score, but there was one thing I could not do in hockey.
A slap shot is an interesting phenomena in hockey. You might think that a strong player takes his stick, swings it high and hard, using his strength, and hits the puck as hard as he can, to get it to lift off the ice and sail through the air.
It is not so.
The player actually hits the ice with his stick, causing the stick to bend and propel the puck.
It is not easy to learn.
I was strong, and wound up and slammed the puck with good strength, only to watch it trickle along the ice, raising a few chuckles along the way.
A kind and friendly player taught me the technique of hitting the ice with my stick and I practiced it often but to no avail.
The puck would not leave the ice. I watched as 10 year olds could launch a puck far better than I could, no matter how much stronger I was than they were.
One morning on the drive to the rink, I was deeply concentrating on the steps of the slap shot, so much so, that I could "see" with my 'mind's eye' the stick hitting the ice, just before the puck, and could "see" the follow through perfectly. I could see the stick bend, and launch the puck 6" off the ice: low and hard. I could "see" it, as if it was slowed down for me, step by step. I could "see" it as I was deep in concentration.
I regained my thought only to notice that I had driven past the exit for the rink. I was lost in thought.
But it was that it 'clicked' for me and as soon as I got on the ice for warm ups, I attempted the technique and the puck sailed, at a high rate of speed, into the goal tender's chest. He was furious as this was only warm ups, until I took off my helmet and he recognized me as the guy who could not get a slap shot off, and laughed.
Since that time, I developed a fairly nice slap shot and can teach others how to do it.
It took concentration; the kind of concentration that caused me to "see" it, which, I believe can be applied to Kaaryn's description. I concentrated so deeply that I missed the highway exit I had taken so many times before.
Many years ago I laughed at the notion of chess as an Olympic sport, that is, until the night I participated in a tournament in Mineola, New York.
After 2 1/2 hours of the highest level of concentration, I could barely drive home, I was so exhausted. I was wet with sweat, and felt both exhilirated and exhausted. I had an easier time driving home from hockey games at 1AM (the "Midnight Hockey League) than I did driving home from chess.
Concentration is hard work.
Go back to a statement. Make attempts to "see" only what the subject has shared. "Enter" his "verbalized reality" in order to "see" what he wants you to see, and, perhaps, what it is that he does not want you to "see."
"See" where, precisely, he has skipped over information. What is it that he does not want me to "see"? What could have happened here?
The Expected
I find it helpful to make a written list of the "expected"; not only of words but of scenarios. This is a small, stutter step that has helped me "see" what could have been in the statement. I feel this is best when I am able to come up with 3 or 4 possible scenarios, seeking to expect "truth", so that I can be "surprised" when it does not happen.
The wisdom of attempting to "see" the possible scenarios will be justified by its outcome, over time.
Ask yourself, "What scenarios comes from such phrases?" When father of missing toddler Ayla Reynolds wrote, "contrary to rumors floating out there..." LSI found, Avinoam Sapir asked me, "What does he do for a living?"
This question showed an immediate attempt to "see" where the subject's phrase would come from; that is, to enter his "world" in order to understand. When I answered that he was reported to me to be chronically unemployed but was supposed to be taking truck driving lessons, he said, "uh, oh, they need to search water" because truck drivers "have their tires on the ground"; that is, in other words, they would use phrases that have a more 'concrete' or 'solid' basis.
He said these things without hesitation; a mastered skill that flows from him as easy as breathing does for us.
Yet it is that he teaches this skill, and his student, Kaaryn Gough, has learned the lessons well, and imparts to us this same wisdom.
The 40% Factor
I have shared LSI's teaching that when a statement is reviewed after a passing of time, it is likely to yield up to 40% more information. I have learned, through experience, exactly why this is.
I am emotionally impacted by a statement as I seek to enter into the verbalized reality of the subject. Once 'confronted' by the 'unexpected', I am on a particular track, and will struggle to remain open-minded, especially as the statement continues.
Let's say, for example, that I am on a missing child case, something near and dear to the hearts of readers, and become, midway through a parent's statement, convinced that the parent is deceptively withholding information about the last hours of contact with the child.
This convincing is now impacting me, emotionally, as a father, and if the statement is lengthy, I cannot help but feel the weight of deception as I continue to work through the statement.
This happened with the analysis of John and Patsy Ramsey's interviews.
I found myself not only convinced of deception, but angry.
I felt anger at their arrogance, at their callousness of wasting tax payer resources, and at their deriding of investigators.
I thought of a little 6 year old, and the promise her life once held, especially the way those who knew her described her, and felt angry.
Years later, in reviewing the analysis, I did so without the same anger, and saw, fresh and new, information I had previously overlooked. (I found this especially to be evident in the 911 call).
Sometimes people leave comments such as "this is old info" not understanding the "40% Principle of Yield" and that the re-publishing of analysis is done not simply to bring new readers up to speed, but the analysis has been added to.
40% more?
Yes, especially as emotions are tempered and, perhaps, others, via commentary, have added pearls of wisdom to the analysis.
How many times have you seen a pithy comment left by a reader added to analysis?
I've lost count.
Read carefully Kaaryn's analysis, and then read it again. Practice "seeing" the possibilities presented.
Now, write out your own statement.
Choose a day you were off from work, and write out, in a page to a page and a half in length, what you did, from the time you woke up, until the time you went to bed.
Put it down and come back the next day and...
1. Circle the pronouns
2. Make a list of all the names in your day. Note the order in which they appear. Include pets.
3. Highlight the first entrance of the word "we" in your day.
4. Note all times in your statement.
5. Note the specific time when the word "we" entered your statement.
6. Note any indicators of sensitivity
7. Note any change of language.
8. Note any leaps in time.
9. Note the verb tenses
Then put it away.
Let some time pass, so that the day is no longer fresh in memory, and go through it again, and see if you can "see" what the day was like for you. Learn if you can "see" with your 'mind's eye', what the day was like; the weather, what you ate, who you interacted with, how you felt, physically and emotionally.
You will surprise yourself, perhaps, on just how this skill can be learned.
It is one thing to memorize and repeat back. It is a valued skill, in fact, but it is far more valuable to take the facts, and know what to do with them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment