Although not challenging, it is important to remain in principle.
Here, you are asked to analyze a letter from an eight year old subject.
What do you know about the subject?
Consider within analysis the rule that tells you:
Do not analyze a person, analyze the statement. The person "does not exist" to you in Round One of Analysis. Therefore, any outside information, including the age of the subject must be discounted in the initial analysis.
If the analysis shows something different than an eight year old child, you must trust the analysis.
Here is a common example used in training. The typified allegation:
"I woke up. Sheila got up and went to work. I also went to work..."
With only this to go by, you already have some information to go by.
1. The statement about theft began with the pronoun "I" meaning that the subject, psychologically, is "in" this statement. It is, statistically, likely to contain reliable information in content analysis.
2. You know that two people were previously asleep.
3. You know that two people are likely to be employed.
4. You "know" that the subject is not "married" to Sheila.
Here is the point:
The case file shows that the subject is, in fact, married to Shiela. She is his wife.
The analysis says "no, they are not married!" and should not be backed down from.
This is critical in understanding the theft.
Where is he "not married"?
Answer: in the statement.
The statement is his verbalized perception of reality; it is not reality.
This goes to the "incomplete social introduction" where he does not say,
"my wife, Sheila" but deprives her of her title, "wife" and denies personal possession of her ("my"), therefore,
this is a problematic relationship that is a factor in the theft investigation.
That they are reported to have woken up separately is important.
Did they sleep separately?
Why is she not, in the context of a police criminal investigation, his "wife"?
When the case is solved, the analyst will readily see how the problematic relationship was related to theft.
We analyze statements, not people, in detecting deception by beginning with the presupposition that he did not commit the theft.
As we work through the statement if he "talks us out" of this presupposition, we will have our conclusion.
For advanced analysis, the work has just begun.
Up next, the three rounds of analysis.
As to our "eight year old" statement,
what does analysis show?
Do you know the author?
Is this genuine or "fake hate"?
Lastly, for deeper consideration:
can "fake hate" be emotional abuse of a child?