[Part 2] Even when denying, it is not just 'yourself' that you are protecting

Hello everyone!
I am your behavioral psychologist.

In Part 1 last time, I talked about how we should not start this theme by asking 'whether it is a lie' but rather by looking at
'how they are protecting it'.

What became clear there was that Hillary Clinton's narrative seems less like a simple explanation of facts and more like she is designing the very arena of the narrative herself.

• Close your eyes.

• Place a strong denial.

• And then, the focus gradually shifts away from the main topic.

Up to this point, it is still a common defense.

But if we take one more step forward this time, we can see something a little different.

That is, it seems that what she is protecting is not just herself alone.

What she is denying is her own lack of involvement.

However, if you follow the structure of the narrative, there is another person there who has not yet come to the forefront.

It is Bill Clinton.

This is the point of this article.

People change how they choose their words depending on whether they are protecting themselves or 'the whole including themselves'.

What changes in particular is the power to escape from personal talk to general theory.

If you were only protecting yourself,

might be enough.

But when you need to protect someone as if wrapping them up, the narrative moves to the next stage.

It changes from a personal denial to a way of saying, 'ordinary people didn't know either'.

We will look at that in this section.

This is because, from this point on, it is not just a simple denial, but a technique for diffusing responsibility that becomes visible.

⚠️Caution⚠️

The gestures introduced here are not "proof that someone is definitely lying," but rather examples of signs where true feelings might leak out.

Psychologist Paul Ekman's research suggests that basic facial expressions such as anger, joy, sadness, fear, surprise, and disgust are universally recognized across cultures.

In other words, "facial expressions and gestures are universal human clues."

Symbolically speaking, it can also be expressed as "the truth is etched on everyone's face."

However, the goal is not to "suspect the other person," but to understand them and connect to better communication as a form of "hospitality," and please do not forget that sincerity is important.

Also, factual determinations cannot be made based solely on non-verbal analysis or narrative structural analysis.

What we are dealing with here is where psychological burden gathers and how responsibility is reallocated.

1. Denials that protect oneself and denials that protect someone else are different

As we saw last time, Hillary's statements contain quite clear self-defense.

• I don't know

• I didn't do it

• I didn't meet them

• I am not involved

This is a denial that protects oneself.

Up to this point, it is easy to understand.

But looking at the material this time, the quality of her statements changes slightly from a certain point.

That is when she was asked about Bill Clinton.

At this point, she does not simply go in the direction of asserting that "he did not know."

What comes out instead is,

a generalization to that effect.

At this moment, the unit of the narrative changes.

The "I" up until that point expands here into "many people," "ordinary people," and "people who were around at the time."

This may look like a small change, but it is quite significant.

This is because when people protect only themselves, they draw a line.

But when they wrap someone up to protect them, they blur the surroundings as well.

Here, for the first time, the foreshadowing from the previous section is partially resolved.

Her narrative seems to be asserting her own "lack of involvement," but in reality, it is also connected to family-unit defense outside of that.

2. The psychological effect of "many people did not know"

So why is this generalization so strong?

It is because the human brain is very susceptible to the phrase "everyone else was like that too."

For example, suppose you are asked about a certain individual.

This question is originally one that asks about the awareness and responsibility of one person, Bill.

However, the answer is,

• at the time, many people did not know

• most people were not aware

• What you couldn't understand through normal contact

When it changes to this, what happens in the listener's brain?

1. First, the focus of responsibility becomes blurred.

2. Next, a general validity is created, such as 'that might be the case.'

3. Finally, it shifts from a story about an individual to one about the 'times' or the 'atmosphere.'

This is extremely powerful.

This is because the pressure of individual responsibility is diluted by collective common sense.

What is important here is that I am not saying this way of speaking is a lie.

Rather, the problem is that, regardless of whether it is true or not, this way of speaking is extremely well-suited for defense.

In other words,

• not asserting too directly

• can be corrected later

• can dissolve the other party into a group

• can impress upon the listener a sense of 'normality'

It has multiple effects all at once.

This is a defense used very often not only in political arenas but also in daily life.

And here, I will lay down another piece of foreshadowing.

When generalization becomes strong, people often avoid specific explanations of individuals.

In other words, while it seems like they are broadening the scope, they are actually moving away from a single point.

3. The overly convenient way of saying 'plus one'

The explanation regarding Ghislaine Maxwell makes this structure even easier to understand.

Regarding Maxwell's presence at Chelsea Clinton's wedding, Hillary explains that "she was a plus one for a guest."

Here, we tend to just

and let it slide.

However, from the perspective of behavioral analysis, this "plus one" is a very important term.

This is because this single phrase contains multiple escape routes all at once.

• I didn't invite her proactively

• It doesn't imply a deep relationship

• Just being there is not proof of intimacy

• The weight of the relationship can be minimized

In other words, "plus one" is not a word that denies the facts.

It is a word that shrinks the meaning of the facts..

This is very important.

When people cannot erase photos, records, or the fact of being present, what do they do next?

They diminish the meaning of that relationship.

• I just happened to be there

• It was just formal

• We are not close

• I was just accompanying someone else

These are all redefinitions of the relationship.

And when this redefinition becomes necessary, there is usually a premise that "the contact itself is difficult to deny."

Here, the question from Part 1 returns in a different form.

We tend to chase after "whether or not they met."

But what we should really be looking at might be how they are currently reconstructing the meaning of having met.

4. The definition of the relationship becomes more important than the presence of contact

Once you reach this point, the way you see things changes a little.

What is truly important in this theme is not just

• "Did they meet even once?"

• "Is there a photo?"

• "Is there a record of attendance?"

.

Of course, those are also important.

However, what is more interesting as a behavioral analysis is how that contact is described in terms of distance.

This is because when people enter a defensive phase, they begin to edit their sense of distance before the facts themselves.edit their sense of distance.

• Close → Not really that close

• Meet frequently → Within the scope of social interaction

• Invited → Happened to be there

• Know them → Just an acquaintance

• Had interaction → Limited contact

This edit is very natural.

And very precarious.

By precarious, I do not necessarily mean that there is malicious intent.

Rather, people do this quite unconsciously when protecting their own narrative.

That is precisely why it is important.

What becomes visible in Hillary's narrative this time is not simply saying 'I don't know,' but rather a technique for lowering the temperature of the connection .

And this is not only a technique for protecting oneself, but also a technique for diluting the overall relationship map, including Bill.

In other words, what has become visible in Part 2 this time is that the essence of denial may not be 'denial of facts,' but 'lightening of relationships'.

5. The core of this issue

Here, I will state the core of Part 2 clearly.

Hillary's narrative is not just saying 'I am unrelated.'

What she is doing even more than that is

• diffusing personal responsibility into generalities

• minimizing the meaning of contact

• redefining the weight of relationships

is what she is doing.

In short, she is not just protecting the facts about herself.

She is protecting 'the way the whole, including herself, is perceived'.

Once we reach this point, the question posed in the introduction of Part 1 becomes a little deeper.

What you need to see through is not a single facial expression.

Then what is it?

It is to what extent that person reshapes the world in order to protect what they value .

And in many cases, what you really need to look at is not the words that person denied most strongly, but what was diluted around that denial .

Application

Daily life

When someone explains about themselves or their family,

• “Nobody else knew either”

• “We were just in the same place”

• “It’s like a friend of a friend”

• “There’s no deep meaning to it”

If these ways of speaking come up, look at whether the meaning of the relationship is being diminished rather than the facts themselves.

Company

In explanations of scandals or troubles,

• “It was like that for the whole industry at the time”

• “It was just a formal participation”

• “It was not a direct involvement”

• “I was not in a position to recognize it”

Such explanations may appear.
This is not necessarily a lie.
However, there is a possibility that personal responsibility is being converted into generalizations and distance editing .

Lovers

This also happens quite a lot in romantic relationships.

• "That person is just an acquaintance"

• "They were there, but I didn't invite them"

• "We have photos together, but it's nothing special"

What is important at this time is not to blame them for the contact, but to look at why they want to define the distance that way right now.

Source

• Ekman, P. (2003) "Emotions Revealed"

• Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978) "Facial Action Coding System"

• Navarro, J. (2011) "What Every BODY Is Saying"

• Vrij, A. (2008) "Detecting Lies and Deceit"

• Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996) "Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue"

Next Episode Preview

In Part 3, we will finally delve into Bill Clinton's own narrative.

What we have seen so far is that while Hillary's statements were a "denial," they actually had a structure that protected the relationship as a whole.

So, what about Bill himself?

At first glance, his statements sound very calm. Rational, gentle, structured, and easy to listen to.

However, a problem arises there.

The problem that sounding calm is not the same as being honest.

Next time,

• Why you need to be more careful with those who "speak well"

• Why those who talk about grand causes or principles sometimes distance themselves from specifics

• Why are "I didn't see it" and "I didn't know" so convenient?

We will look at this from Bill's perspective.

And finally, we will conclude by addressing the biggest question of this trilogy: What is the difference between a clever narrative and a true narrative? We will wrap that up at the end.

In conclusion

Thank you for reading this far!
Your "likes" and follows are a great encouragement to me.
If you found this even a little bit "helpful" or "interesting," please be sure to "like" and follow me 🙇‍♂️

Magazine

Here is the magazine I have participated in!
I am truly grateful, and I look forward to continuing this connection! 🙇

Also, this article of mine was featured, so please take a look 🙇

Here is another one!

The "I remember..." series is a five-part work, so if you'd like, I think it will be easier to understand if you read it from the beginning.

I also recommend this!

Please check this out too!

For those who want to learn more, deepen their understanding of reading gestures, and learn through diagrams and case-specific responses, please see the paid articles 👇

※Recommended for those who want to correctly understand gestures, reduce misunderstandings, and engage in dialogue that utilizes "hospitality" and "sincerity."
Also, everyone, please take care of your health and bodies.

See you later!!!