Monday, October 26, 2009

Obama Admin Uses "Interpersonal Deception" Methods [Update 2]

Watch the following two videos carefully. In fact, it might even help to view each one several times. The subject at hand in Glenn Beck's analysis of the tactics that the administration uses to attack people and organizations that they don't agree with politically is made quite clear. The second video indicates that name-calling is the name of the game at the White House.

I will return with a detailed analysis that will show you how such tactics are part of a type of communications technique known as "Interpersonal Deception Theory."

66- Glenn Beck Clips 10-21-09
Seg1- Tactics the Admin Uses to Attack People and Organizations

Watch Video

65- Glenn Beck Clips 10-21-09
Seg2- Name Calling Is The Name of the Game in the WH

Watch Video

David Buller and Judee Burgoon discuss three types of response you might give if you decide not to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

1. First, you could lie.
2. Second, you could tell part of the truth while leaving out important details.
3. Third, you could be intentionally vague or evasive.

Following the lead of others who study verbal deceit, Buller and Burgoon label these three strategies falsification, concealment, and equivocation. The three differ in that falsification creates a fiction, concealment hides a secret, and equivocation dodges the issue. Yet all three messages fall under the umbrella concept of deception, which Buller and Burgoon define as "a message knowingly transmitted by a sender to foster a false belief or conclusion by the receiver."

These authors go on to explain that nonverbal cues are not always reliable indicators of deception.

When tested under controlled laboratory conditions, people rarely are more than 60 percent accurate in their ability to spot deception, while a just-by-chance 50 percent detection rate is more common.

Did you spot the deception techniques used by each individual in the video clips that Glenn provided? Glenn described, and exposed the "wrong thinking," "danger," and "profit" arguments used by the Obama Admin and far left liberal Congress members. Did you notice how the individuals who were utilizing Interpersonal Deception Methods in the video clips described, with their own choice of words, that all of the groups and/or people that they oppose are unequivocally labeled as "enemies?"

I'll be back later to provide further analysis.


Did you guess what the next trick up the Obama Admin sleeve is? ObamaSCARE HELLcare!

Watch Video

Going to watch Glenn's show now...brb.

Update 10/27/09 -

My apologies for not getting back to this post yesterday. Sometimes, family matters come up.

In the third video above, Glenn labels what is being done in WA D.C. as a "shell game." When will America wake up to the deception?

There is a humorous, tongue-in-cheek kind of cartoon on page 98 of the textbook that I quoted from yesterday. I will describe it:

There is a man with two suitcases alongside of him as he attempts to register for a certain kind of convention at a hotel registration desk. There are two men standing behind the counter and one says:

"Sorry sir. The Liar's Club Convention isn't at this hotel. I'm afraid someone gave you the wrong information."

I chuckled when I read that. Then, my next thought was that many of the Dems in Congress could be labeled as members of "The Liar's Club." In fact, people like Harry Reid would also be a great candidate for "The Deception Club."

It was recently announced that the "Public Option" is in the senate bill. However, Reid claims that there will be an "opt out" provision in the bill for states to decide whether or not they want to participate in the public option. I thought to myself that an "opt in" provision might be better.

[Note: My reasoning for this was that when the homosexual agenda reached the school where my children attended, the board allowed an "opt in" provision. This worked out better than an "opt out" one. Why? Simply because the notices for the "opt out" provision did not always reach the parents. With the "opt in" provision, the parent's signature MUST BE on the paper or the student would not get into the class/assembly/after-school event...whatever. This gave the power to the parents to decide such matters for their children (where it should be!) - not the school officials who mostly agree with the homosexual indoctrination agenda.]

But then, Senator Charles Grassley brought me back to my senses regarding the shell game of deception that the Dems are trying to pull. He recently stated that the private insurance sector would not be able to compete with a government run health care system. This has been the objection of a majority of Republicans (plus some moderate Democrats) all along. Grassley stated that it would RUIN the system that has given us the best health care (although not perfect and can be improved) in the world. It was also revealed that the states who choose to "opt out" would still have to pay for the government run health care! Therefore, we vividly see Reid's deception tactic.

In a section called, "An Emergent Theory of Strategic Interaction," Buller and Burgoon write:

[H]uman beings are rather poor lie detectors, but they don't think that the typical one-way communication experiment is a helpful way to explore the reason why. They point out that past research has usually involved people listening to scripted messages recorded by strangers with whom they've had no chance to interact. this static approach to deception ignores communication dynamics and focuses instead on internal thought processes -- behind-the-eyes explanations for liars' manipulative behavior or the naive acceptance of gullible listeners. Buller notes that "rarely is it acknowledged that receivers react to deceivers' message and that these reactions alter the communication exchange and, perhaps, deception's success."

Doesn't that describe what is going on between Congress and many of the American people who are screaming that they don't want government run health care???

Look at this. Interpersonal Deception Theory:

Explain[s] the interplay between active deceivers and detectors who communicate with multiple motives, who behave strategically, whose communication behaviors mutually influence one another to produce a sequence of moves and counter moves, and whose communication is influenced by the situation in which the deception transpires.

When I get more time, I will list the 18 propositions of Interpersonal Deception Theory. For now, I want to share a brief paragraph that reveals how deceivers manipulate information - a.k.a. "the language and look of liars."

At root, deception is accomplished by manipulating information. Whether through falsification, concealment, or equivocation, liars use words to accomplish their end. As Sir Walter Scott wrote,

O what, a tangled web we weave,
when first we practise to deceive!

Buller and Burgoon agree, but not necessarily on moral grounds. They judge a deceptive act on the basis of the deceiver's motives, not on the act itself.

Ahh...yes. And what would the motives be to pass the public option healthcare?

Two things.

1. Power - precisely Governmental Power.
2. Control - precisely Governmental Control.

What is their goal?

In Thomas Sowell's bone-chilling column today, he reveals that Obama is involved in:

The Dismantling of America


How far the president will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government – people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year – each bill more than a thousand pages long – too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question – and the biggest question for this generation.

Update 2:

The 18 Propositions of Interpersonal Deception Theory

1. What deceivers and respondents think and do varies according to the amount of interactive give-and-take that's possible in the situation.

2. What deceivers and respondents think and do varies according to how well they know and like each other.

3. Deceivers make more strategic moves and leak more nonverbal cues than truth tellers.

4. With increased interaction, deceivers make more strategic moves and idsplay less leakage.

5. Deceivers' and respondents' expectation for honesty (truth bias) is positively linked with interactivity and relational warmth.

6. Deceivers' fear of being caught and the strategic activity that goes with that fear are lower when truth bias is high, and vice versa.

7. Motivation affects strategic activity and leakage (a) People who deceive for their own self-gain make more strategic moves and display more leakage. (b) The way respondents first react depends on the relative importance of the relationship and their initial suspicion.

8. As relational familiarity increases, deceivers become more afraid of detection, make more strategic moves, and display more leakage.

9. Skilled deceivers appear more believable because they make more strategic moves and display less leakage than unskilled deceivers.

10. A deceiver's perceived credibility is positively linked to interactivity, the respondent's truth bias, and the deceiver's communication skill but goes down to the extent that the deceiver's communication is unexpected.

11. A respondent's accuracy in spotting deception goes down when interactivity, the respondent's truth bias, and the deceiver's communication skill go up. Detection is positively linked to the respondent's listening skills, relational familiarity, and the degree to which the deceiver's communication is unexpected.

12. Respondents' suspicion is apparent in their strategic activity and leakage.

13. Deceivers spot suspicion when it's present. Perception of suspicion increases when a respondent's behavior is unexpected. Any respondent reactions that signal disbelief, doubt, or the need for more information increase the deceiver's perception of suspicion.

14. Real or imagined suspicion are displayed within a given interaction changes over time.

15. The way deception and suspicion are displayed within a given interaction changes over time.

16. In deceptive interactions, reciprocity is the most typical pattern of adaptive response.

17. When the conversation is over, the respondent's detection accuracy, judgment of deceiver credibility, and truth bias depend on the deceiver's final strategic moves and leakage as well as the respondent's listening skill and remaining suspicions. [Note: if Nice Deb visits and reads this - I think that this one describes that Blue Dog Democrat's suspicions about Obama!!]

18. When the conversation is over, the deceiver's judgment of success depends on the respondent's final reaction and the deceiver's perception of lasting suspicion. [Note: In other words - HE AIN'T BUYIN' IT!!!]

Hat Tips:

My daughter, a soon-to-graduate Communications Major who spotted the deception technique while watching the weekend re-broadcast of these segments!

Reference Source: A First Look at Communication Theory, 6th Edition, by Em Griffin. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020 Copyright 2006, pp. 97-99.

Glenn Beck

WorldNetDaily: Dismantling of America by Thomas Sowell


MurrayA said...

When I was young (Ah, those were the days of yore!) it was drummed into us at school, and by my parents the following principle:

"A half-truth paraded as the whole truth is an untruth."

The liberal media have never heard of it, because their business is half-truths. The propaganda peddled in our schools here (and presumably in the U.S.) is full of half-truths. Political speeches likewise trade on half-truths. The typical sound-byte on TV is a half-truth, since you then have to ask, "What else did that person go on to say?"

The prevalence of the half-truth is why the MSM are rightly called instead "The Media of Mass Decption".

Christinewjc said...

Interesting, MurrayA! I think that saying has been disgarded by the "ruling and educational elites" in order to push their concept of relativism. The idea that there are "many truths out there" and each person can choose for themselves "what is truth" (as Pilot asked Jesus) leads people into a kind of spiritual oblivion.

Yep - the MSM is filled with half-truths as well as outright lies and deception! (just watch Keith Oberdummy on MSNBullCrap one night)

Christinewjc said...

Note to Kevin -

Your comment had absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic.

Try again.

thekingpin68 said...

Hi Christine,

I really do not want that cereal.

I put my own film ratings for my blogs on my thekingpin68 blog, but here is yours;)

thekingpin68 said...

Politically there is often the charge of wrong thinking applied to the opposition.

An appeal to emotions is often made.

These claims are mere assertions without reasonable argumentation.

thekingpin68 said...

Sorry Christine, I had some trouble with my first comment.

I think these are funny...


Christinewjc said...

Hi Russ,

My blog is rated NC-17? Wow...what would a p0rn blog rating get? Don't want to know...

I did let one "a**" get by my better judgment. Usually camouflage that word. It just fit so well that I left it in there. My Christian friends probably didn't approve!

About the "wrong thinking" application. Isn't it strange that Obama & crooks use the "wrong thinking," "danger," and "profit" argument almost every time for everything in their criticism against the opposition?

Christinewjc said...

Kevin -

You are entitled to your own opinion.

This blog post is not about the former administration. It is about the current one.

If you want to argue about the past administration - go to another blog. I often hear that the Daily Kossacks still like to bash President Bush. Perhaps you could find a Bush-bashing home there for yourself.

Kevin said...

O.K. Christine, I'll do that. You can see my own blog if you want.