For Those Who Saw The Congressman Massa Interview

[PoliticalChic]

Interrogation and Kinesics

1.Body language. Demeanor and posture. Consider grammar and syntax. Observe these characteristics carefully before actual interrogations in order to determine a behavioral baseline.
a. The baseline is a catalog of those behaviors exhibited when the subject is telling the truth. This is the standard the interrogator will compare later with the subject’s behavior when he might have a reason to lie. Differences between the two suggest deception.

2. Observe how the subject behaved when asked questions. And how subject behaved when answering.

3. In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering), and verbal content (what the subject says).
a. The first two are more reliable indications of deception, since it’s much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body’s natural reaction when we do.
b. Two clues signal lying with some consistency:
One is a very slight increase in the pitch of the voice, because lying triggers an emotional response within most people, and emotion cause vocal cords to tighten. If the subject becomes aware that his voice had risen in pitch, the interrogator should watch for pauses where there is no reason to pause.
The other signal is pausing before and during answering, since lying is mentally challenging. One who’s lying has to think constantly about what he and other people have said previously about the topic, and then craft a fictitious response that’s consistent with those prior statements and what he believes the interrogator knows.

4. Types of answers and behaviors suggesting deception:
a. Not a yes-no answer. “Not really.” “I don’t recall.” Includes evasive answers.
b. Offering more information than necessary.
c. Digressing.
d. Engaging in negation or blocking movements: touching the head, nose, and eyes particularly, touching lips, covering mouth.
e. Aversion: turning away.
f. Defensive: lifting ankle to the knee.
g. Responding with a question is classic indicator of deception: the subject is trying to buy time to decide where interrogator is going, and how to frame the response.
h. Attempt to establish camaraderie with interrogator (“you do the same…”)
i. Use of generalizations and abstractions (“everybody” or “everywhere”)

5. Standard Four-Part Analysis of Subject (when interview becomes interrogation)
a. What was the subjects role in the incident or event?
b. Is there a motive to lie? And, what is is?
c. What is the subject’s personality type? This will determine the demeanor the questioner should use: aggressive or conciliatory, including the use of reward-punishment techniques.
Determine whether introvert or extrovert. Or…
Use the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator.
d. Determine what kind of ‘liar’s personality’.

[ Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator, which in addition to introvert-extrovert:
a. Thinking or feeling
b. Sensing or intuitive
c. Judging or perceiving.
d. Introvert or extrovert.]
Liar’s Personality Types:
a. Manipulators, or High Machiavellians: lie with impunity, seeing nothing wrong with it, using deceit as a tool to achieve their goals in love, business or politics- or crime.
b. Social liars- lie to entertain
c. Adaptors- insecure people who lie to make a positive impression.
d. Actors- control being an important issue, they don’t lie regularly, only when necessary, and are less skilled than Hi-Macs, but they’re good deceivers.


6. Interrogators refer to the immediate space around a human being as being the ‘Proxemic Zone’ a. Intimate 6-18 inches
b. Personal about 2 feet
c. Public about 10 feet away.

7. Stress due to lying pushes subjects into one of four emotional states: determine which state to decide on tactic. i.e. anger, encourage venting; denial, attack the facts. When the bargaining state entered, drop the frontal assault, and offer a way to save face. The enemy isn’t the liar, it’s the lie.
a. angry
b. depressed
c. denial (“I swear,” “honestly” “I’m on your side”) Dodging responsibility.
d. try to bargain their way out. Want to be reassured and forgiven.


Emblems: common gestures that tend to be substituted for words, like shrugs and finger pointing, shaking of the head, or nodding.

Adaptors: Release physical or emotional tension, signs that one is experiencing emotion. Spreading fingers on the table, foot tapping, finger flexing, glances toward the door.

Affect Displays - Show emotion
Regulators - Control the flow and pace of communication
Illustrators - Accompany or reinforce verbal messages

 

[L.K.Eder]

now here we have some plagiarism, again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

now here we have some plagiarism, again.

If that is the case, please cite the exact source of my notes.

If, on the other hand the OP, which is a compilation of my notes from various readings, is a paraphrased summary, and in some of the cases, common knowledge, then you would appear to be somewhat the spiteful fool.

Further, the idea of 'plagarism' is useful, generally in journalism or in academic papers.

And since this board is not quite journalism, and you would hardly be found anywhere near what is considered academia, your post is, as usual, obviated.

I generally don’t respond to you for the same reason one shouldn’t wrestle in the mud with pigs: after a while you realize they enjoy it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

you lifted a whole paragraph from The Sleeping Doll by Jefferey Deaver

In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language, or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering) and verbal content (what the suspect says). The first two are far more reliable indications of deception, since it's much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body's natural reaction when we do.

2. Observe how the subject behaved when asked questions. And how subject behaved when answering.

3. In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering), and verbal content (what the subject says).
a. The first two are more reliable indications of deception, since it’s much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body’s natural reaction when we do.
b. Two clues signal lying with some consistency:

i did not bother to find where you stole the rest.

 

[Samson]

Dear Political Chick,

I wish you'd just post the quote, and then write your own opinion of it.


Example:

In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering), and verbal content (what the subject says).

a. The first two are more reliable indications of deception, since it’s much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body’s natural reaction when we do

Ironically, this thread serves as an interesting example. Essentially L.K. Elder is the interrogator, and you are the interrogated:

LKE: You copied and pasted this OP, didn't you?
PC: Prove it........and even if I did........so what?
LKE: OK, here is the source: The Sleeping Doll, by Jeffery Deaver.

You appear to be an "Adaptor- insecure people who lie to make a positive impression."

Source: Your own post, Section 5; Liar Personality Types.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you lifted a whole paragraph from The Sleeping Doll by Jefferey Deaver

In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language, or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering) and verbal content (what the suspect says). The first two are far more reliable indications of deception, since it's much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body's natural reaction when we do.

2. Observe how the subject behaved when asked questions. And how subject behaved when answering.

3. In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering), and verbal content (what the subject says).
a. The first two are more reliable indications of deception, since it’s much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body’s natural reaction when we do.
b. Two clues signal lying with some consistency:

i did not bother to find where you stole the rest.

Actually, you are correct: I do remember that as one of the Deaver books that I read.

In fact, that may have been the reason that I began researching the subject.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dear Political Chick,

I wish you'd just post the quote, and then write your own opinion of it.


Example:

In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering), and verbal content (what the subject says).

a. The first two are more reliable indications of deception, since it’s much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body’s natural reaction when we do

Ironically, this thread serves as an interesting example. Essentially L.K. Elder is the interrogator, and you are the interrogated:

LKE: You copied and pasted this OP, didn't you?
PC: Prove it........and even if I did........so what?
LKE: OK, here is the source: The Sleeping Doll, by Jeffery Deaver.

You appear to be an "Adaptor- insecure people who lie to make a positive impression."

Source: Your own post, Section 5; Liar Personality Types.

Now go on to admit that the topic of the OP was both interesting and timely, especially if you have seen the Glenn Beck interview with Congressman Massa.

 

[Samson]

Dear Political Chick,

I wish you'd just post the quote, and then write your own opinion of it.


Example:

In spotting lies, interrogators consider three factors: nonverbal behavior (body language or kinesics), verbal quality (pitch of voice or pauses before answering), and verbal content (what the subject says).

a. The first two are more reliable indications of deception, since it’s much easier to control what we say than how we say it and our body’s natural reaction when we do

Ironically, this thread serves as an interesting example. Essentially L.K. Elder is the interrogator, and you are the interrogated:

LKE: You copied and pasted this OP, didn't you?
PC: Prove it........and even if I did........so what?
LKE: OK, here is the source: The Sleeping Doll, by Jeffery Deaver.

You appear to be an "Adaptor- insecure people who lie to make a positive impression."

Source: Your own post, Section 5; Liar Personality Types.

Now go on to admit that the topic of the OP was both interesting and timely, especially if you have seen the Glenn Beck interview with Congressman Massa.

I didn't see the interview.

I just opened the thread hoping to annoy you.

I think the topic IS interesting, whether or not it could be applied to Massa, who, as a US Congressman, has a little more credability as the Average Used Car Salesman. However, as Political Chic, I understand its your duty to put a partisan spin on every utterance. I'm gonna begin a thread using part of your OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dear Political Chick,

I wish you'd just post the quote, and then write your own opinion of it.


Example:



Ironically, this thread serves as an interesting example. Essentially L.K. Elder is the interrogator, and you are the interrogated:

LKE: You copied and pasted this OP, didn't you?
PC: Prove it........and even if I did........so what?
LKE: OK, here is the source: The Sleeping Doll, by Jeffery Deaver.

You appear to be an "Adaptor- insecure people who lie to make a positive impression."

Source: Your own post, Section 5; Liar Personality Types.

Now go on to admit that the topic of the OP was both interesting and timely, especially if you have seen the Glenn Beck interview with Congressman Massa.

I didn't see the interview.

I just opened the thread hoping to annoy you.

I think the topic IS interesting, whether or not it could be applied to Massa, who, as a US Congressman, has a little more credability as the Average Used Car Salesman. However, as Political Chic, I understand its your duty to put a partisan spin on every utterance. I'm gonna begin a thread using part of your OP.

1. Glad you agree that the topic was interesting, as it explains something we, and most of the folks on the board, have in common: we are eclectic in our interests and tastes.
2. I know that you look forward to annoying me, and, frankly I find that the jibes on this board make it interesting.
3. I have found that I actully have an advantage over most most other folks: my lifestyle allows me not only to follow up on topics that I find interesting, but- and you can call me geek- I actually write monographs and reports for myself on said topics, some of which I share on the board: as this OP.

Look forward to your next 'attack.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dear Political Chick,

I wish you'd just post the quote, and then write your own opinion of it.


Example:



Ironically, this thread serves as an interesting example. Essentially L.K. Elder is the interrogator, and you are the interrogated:

LKE: You copied and pasted this OP, didn't you?
PC: Prove it........and even if I did........so what?
LKE: OK, here is the source: The Sleeping Doll, by Jeffery Deaver.

You appear to be an "Adaptor- insecure people who lie to make a positive impression."

Source: Your own post, Section 5; Liar Personality Types.

Now go on to admit that the topic of the OP was both interesting and timely, especially if you have seen the Glenn Beck interview with Congressman Massa.

I didn't see the interview.

I just opened the thread hoping to annoy you.

I think the topic IS interesting, whether or not it could be applied to Massa, who, as a US Congressman, has a little more credability as the Average Used Car Salesman. However, as Political Chic, I understand its your duty to put a partisan spin on every utterance. I'm gonna begin a thread using part of your OP.

"However, as Political Chic, I understand its your duty to put a partisan spin on every utterance."

Huh?

Although I generally do try to keep the pot boiling, this is not one of those occasions.

You thought that I was targeting the Congressman because he was a Democrat?

Not true.

I just felt that he looked a bit 'antsy' in the interview, and that the topic of kinesics could apply here. But, it could be used in any interview.

 

[slackjawed]

I saw the interview last night on the replay

My conclusion:

I think Massa is scum, was more than willing to go along with the corrupt methods he says go on until he got caught with a hard-on when he shouldn't have had one.

I believe his descriptions of the workings of congress, but I think he is lying about what he did as well as his reasons for coming forward now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I saw the interview last night on the replay

My conclusion:

I think Massa is scum, was more than willing to go along with the corrupt methods he says go on until he got caught with a hard-on when he shouldn't have had one.

I believe his descriptions of the workings of congress, but I think he is lying about what he did as well as his reasons for coming forward now.

If the subject is the Congressman, I don't believe that anyone went wide-eyed at any human frailties, but the bigger question the incident posed was whether or not the administration 'outed' him because of his antipathy to the healthcare bill.

Would they have covered for him if he voted 'the right way'?

If so, it verifies the "Chicago thug tactics' charges.

 

[Samson]

- and you can call me geek- I actually write monographs and reports for myself on said topics, some of which I share on the board: as this OP.

Look forward to your next 'attack.'

GEEK!!


yeah, it was cheap and easy.

 

[boedicca]

I watched the first 10 minutes and then turned it off. My lower intestine started to wrap itself around my brain. It hurt.

 

[slackjawed]

I saw the interview last night on the replay

My conclusion:

I think Massa is scum, was more than willing to go along with the corrupt methods he says go on until he got caught with a hard-on when he shouldn't have had one.

I believe his descriptions of the workings of congress, but I think he is lying about what he did as well as his reasons for coming forward now.

If the subject is the Congressman, I don't believe that anyone went wide-eyed at any human frailties, but the bigger question the incident posed was whether or not the administration 'outed' him because of his antipathy to the healthcare bill.

Would they have covered for him if he voted 'the right way'?

If so, it verifies the "Chicago thug tactics' charges.

As with my previous post, I can only offer my opinion.
But the only part of Massa's statements I do believe are his descriptions of the inner workings of this congress.
Yes, I think they would have attempted to 'protect' him if the vote was in their favor.
I also hold the opinion that if this had been a situation that had involved republicans, they would act in the same way.
I do not believe the methods Massa described started with this administration.
I believe the corrupt tow party system created a corrupt system that allows our so-called leaders to act in this manner, and they have been doing it for some time.

 

[Bfgrn]

Body language...

Glenn Beck bet his entire show on Eric Massa and LOST...

Glenn's body language...FAILURE...

NEXT...

 

[Diuretic]

This brings back frustrations. You don't need to have studied whatever it is we're discussing to know when some bastard is lying to you. But try and get that in front of a jury! It won't get up, you have to have evidence, bloody nuisance it is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I saw the interview last night on the replay

My conclusion:

I think Massa is scum, was more than willing to go along with the corrupt methods he says go on until he got caught with a hard-on when he shouldn't have had one.

I believe his descriptions of the workings of congress, but I think he is lying about what he did as well as his reasons for coming forward now.

If the subject is the Congressman, I don't believe that anyone went wide-eyed at any human frailties, but the bigger question the incident posed was whether or not the administration 'outed' him because of his antipathy to the healthcare bill.

Would they have covered for him if he voted 'the right way'?

If so, it verifies the "Chicago thug tactics' charges.

As with my previous post, I can only offer my opinion.
But the only part of Massa's statements I do believe are his descriptions of the inner workings of this congress.
Yes, I think they would have attempted to 'protect' him if the vote was in their favor.
I also hold the opinion that if this had been a situation that had involved republicans, they would act in the same way.
I do not believe the methods Massa described started with this administration.
I believe the corrupt tow party system created a corrupt system that allows our so-called leaders to act in this manner, and they have been doing it for some time.

No argument here.

I just want to make it clear that you would be hard pressed to find any of my posts that claim support for Republicans, as well.