Anyone besides me notice how the opening post surreptitiously illustrates the shifty communication methods used by social outcasts, serial murderers, and worse?
Allow me to illustrate.
quote:
originally posted by satori001:
1. I've been accused of "mind-reading" from time to time.
2. Here's a website that explains a little about how I do it.
3. There's a book called "Blink" which explains a little more about it.
4. It's easy to read minds. Try it. Some of you will like it, others won't.
5. Don't ask me who, though. What am I, a mind-reader?
1. Note the deceptive use of the passive voice, in conjunction with the omission of the subject ("they"). This tricky wordplay deflects attention from the deviant ("I"), and underhandedly suggests the duplicity of the missing "they." Very telling. Also note the understatement ("time to time"), as if the "accusation" is intermittent, hence dubious, even though the reverse is apparent.
2. Note the subtle, yet pervasive, egotism, cloaked in modesty. Enough said.
3. Misleading statement. A quick visit to Kirkus Review suggests that this writer has never even seen the aforementioned book, much less read it.
4. The writer states in line 1 that mind-reading is an "accusation," then in line 3, it is "easy," and encourages others to "try it." This obfuscation has the blatant, though hidden, intent of undermining the credibility of those who really know how to read between the lines, rather than those (like this writer) who just say they do, but never actually demonstrate their prowess, leaving the authentically talented feeling vaguely accused.
5. The interrogative at the end coyly (yet deceptively) suggests that this writer might have a talent, though no talent has been demonstrated.
I disagree with the guy's premise. He keeps saying that people are always saying what they really mean. I don't agree. Yes, a lot can be revealed by the exact words people say, but same for the 'nonverbs' as he calls them. Plus, how effective can he be overall if he assumes everybody is lying and focusses only on that?
I had a potentially messy situation 12 yrs ago when using a Uhaul I hit a parked car damaging only the trim and no damage to the Uhaul vehicle. I told the car's owner about it and gave him my info but it happened on Saturday so I couldn't get in touch with Uhaul until Monday after work (2pm).
The car's owner (that I hit) had already called Uhaul and they thought it was a hit and run and I had to see a magistrate downtown who scheduled a trial, all for a 'trim bender'.
I ended up talking to a police officer with a not as plush office/desk as the magistrate. He listened to me and his facial expression seemed like he was looking for lies in much the same way as described in the article, but the officer overruled the magistrate. He took me right to the magistrate's office and nixed the trial just like that.
I WAS telling the truth, but the nonverbs had to have registered somewhere with this officer, IMO. For the guy in the article to just assume everybody's lying based on words alone seems like it would do more harm than good.
In this context, "wisdom" translates into awareness. (Yeah, it's my own damn opinion.)
"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good."
"Trust but verify." - Reagan
johniam, it seems your example demonstrates the opposite point, that things worked out well because the cop had a finely-tuned BS detector. His professional skills have probably revealed a fair number of liars too. Maybe that's why the magistrate went with his opinion.
Recommended Posts
Jim
Are we supposed to read your mind to find the link
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
And am I supposed to read your mind to know that you've fixed the link as I posted
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Good one, Jim. No, just click the link I added upon editing. You're too fast for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
inspired from a friend;
Not so sure it's an art but when people are together minds interact without words being spoken even. Just the way it is I believe.
More like being sensitive to others.
Feelings that someone needs to talk or we need to listen and make a phone call or visit are real.
Not really so much spiritual but human nature.
That which is within us reaches out.
Sometimes we are mistaken most of the time we are not.
My 2 cents worth.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
satori, you really shouldn't be playing Federal Law Enforcement man you know. I've got friends in high places....LMAO.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
You people should be reading up on statement analysis. Get to work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Slavedriver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Anyone besides me notice how the opening post surreptitiously illustrates the shifty communication methods used by social outcasts, serial murderers, and worse?
Allow me to illustrate.
1. Note the deceptive use of the passive voice, in conjunction with the omission of the subject ("they"). This tricky wordplay deflects attention from the deviant ("I"), and underhandedly suggests the duplicity of the missing "they." Very telling. Also note the understatement ("time to time"), as if the "accusation" is intermittent, hence dubious, even though the reverse is apparent.
2. Note the subtle, yet pervasive, egotism, cloaked in modesty. Enough said.
3. Misleading statement. A quick visit to Kirkus Review suggests that this writer has never even seen the aforementioned book, much less read it.
4. The writer states in line 1 that mind-reading is an "accusation," then in line 3, it is "easy," and encourages others to "try it." This obfuscation has the blatant, though hidden, intent of undermining the credibility of those who really know how to read between the lines, rather than those (like this writer) who just say they do, but never actually demonstrate their prowess, leaving the authentically talented feeling vaguely accused.
5. The interrogative at the end coyly (yet deceptively) suggests that this writer might have a talent, though no talent has been demonstrated.
Very informative website.
;)-->
Edited by laleoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy!
You shoulda seen it in the original.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
laleo, Kirkus, huh? Couldn't borrow the Cliff's Notes off somebody?
Funny post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi all
heerz another interesting link on the subject
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I disagree with the guy's premise. He keeps saying that people are always saying what they really mean. I don't agree. Yes, a lot can be revealed by the exact words people say, but same for the 'nonverbs' as he calls them. Plus, how effective can he be overall if he assumes everybody is lying and focusses only on that?
I had a potentially messy situation 12 yrs ago when using a Uhaul I hit a parked car damaging only the trim and no damage to the Uhaul vehicle. I told the car's owner about it and gave him my info but it happened on Saturday so I couldn't get in touch with Uhaul until Monday after work (2pm).
The car's owner (that I hit) had already called Uhaul and they thought it was a hit and run and I had to see a magistrate downtown who scheduled a trial, all for a 'trim bender'.
I ended up talking to a police officer with a not as plush office/desk as the magistrate. He listened to me and his facial expression seemed like he was looking for lies in much the same way as described in the article, but the officer overruled the magistrate. He took me right to the magistrate's office and nixed the trial just like that.
I WAS telling the truth, but the nonverbs had to have registered somewhere with this officer, IMO. For the guy in the article to just assume everybody's lying based on words alone seems like it would do more harm than good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.
In this context, "wisdom" translates into awareness. (Yeah, it's my own damn opinion.)
"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good."
"Trust but verify." - Reagan
johniam, it seems your example demonstrates the opposite point, that things worked out well because the cop had a finely-tuned BS detector. His professional skills have probably revealed a fair number of liars too. Maybe that's why the magistrate went with his opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.