September Newsletter: Moles, Dogs, Baby Oil and Bad Gigs

Late to the party, I know, but I finally binged season one of The Mole on Netflix. It’s a great watch as a TV show and for those wanting to test out their powers of deception detection.

Right at the start of the first episode, every contestant is asked “are you the mole?”. Here are the answers of the final three players which means one of these is the mole.

Contestant 1: “I am not the mole”

Contestant 2: “I’m not the mole”

Contestant 3: “No, I’m not the mole”

Could you spot the liar? It’s a great reminder that it takes more than a short sentence to prove someone is lying. Does it make it easier if I give you three statements from the same contestants just before the mole is revealed?

Contestant 1: “Only one person has guessed the mole’s identity tonight, I need it to be me”

Contestant 2: “I’m nervous, my heart is pounding, I’m thinking did I make the right choice?”

Contestant 3: “It’s so surreal that it’s all accumulated to this very moment. This is it, this is the end of the road”

Answer at the end of the newsletter!

Over Qualified

I found this story on a local website this week. It’s about a family looking for a refund due to a suboptimal experience at a show they attended. It has deceptive language throughout, and this is the quote that stood out for me:

“We couldn’t really see her for some of the songs - I’d say about half - and we were off to the side of the stage where the drummer was, I could see all the setup equipment but not her as much.”

“Really”, “some of”, “I’d say about”, “as much”. On first read, you might think she couldn’t see the singer. When you look at how qualified it is, you can see she’s laying it on thick… now why would that be?!

Jermaine Information

A listener asked me to look at an interview from a disgraced UK TV presenter, Jermaine Jenas. It took place hours after he was sacked from his role following allegations emerged that he was a sex text pest.

Events moved quicker than me, but his statement is worth analysing. In particular, he said:

“I eh can’t really talk about it. I, as you can probably see, I’m not happy about it. But currently as it stands um I-I-I I’m going to have to let the lawyers deal with it. There’s two sides to every story as we know so that’s all I can say right now”.

You can see how this is no denial of harassing women. It’s over qualified. The line “THE lawyers” rather than “my lawyers” suggests no lawyers were involved at the time. “Two sides to every story” is not a denial, and is generally said by someone who realises the other side to the story is forceful.

And behold, just a couple of days later the headlines screamed:

“Jermaine Jenas exclusive: I’m so ashamed. Sorry to my wife and the women I texted. It wasn’t physical, but it was cheating. I’m self-destructive and let my family down”.

In the Dog House

Lilly Allen hit the headlines this month when she revealed on her podcast why she once got rid of a dog. She said:

“We actually did adopt a dog already, but then it ate my passport and so I took her back to the home. She ate all three of our passports and they had our visas in and I cannot tell you how much money it cost me to get everything replaced, because it was Covid so it was just an absolute logistical nightmare.

And because the father of my children lives in England, I couldn't take them back to see their dad for like four months, five months, because this f@@king dog had eaten the passports.

And I just couldn't look at her. I was like 'You've ruined my life.’”

What do you make of that? It’s mostly straightforward. I think she overstates the amount of hardship it caused with “just an absolute logistical nightmare” but the part “it ate my passport and so I took her back to the home” is very direct which suggests honesty. (Bonus “it” rather than “he” or “she” shows dislike or distance from the dog)

Lilly caught some heat for this and issued a statement:

“We rescued our puppy Mary from a shelter in NY and we loved her very much, BUT she developed pretty severe separation anxiety and would act out in all manner of ways. She couldn't be left alone for more than 10 mins, she had 3 long walks a day 2 by us and 1 with a local dog walker and several other dogs, we worked with the shelter that we rescued her from and they referred us to a behavioral specialist and a professional trainer, it was a volunteer from the shelter who would come and dog sit her when we were away, and after many months and much deliberation everyone was in agreement that our home wasn't the best fit for Mary.

The person that she was rehomed with was known to us and that rehoming happened within 24 hours of her being returned. We couldn't meet Mary's needs and her happiness and welfare were central to us making that decision, as difficult as it was.

I've had rescue dogs pretty consistently throughout my life since I was 4 years old, I'm pretty good at ascertaining a dogs needs, I have never been accused of mistreating an animal, and I've found this whole week very distressing.”

I can spot in this:

Social proof: everyone agreed and numerous people were involved in the discussions about the dog

Resume statement: Just because she’s had rescue dogs throughout her life doesn’t mean she didn’t treat this one badly.

Moreover, the fact the dog went to someone they know is irrelevant, as they returned it before it was rehomed.

Can you see something different? Please let me know in the comments.

Diddy Do It?

I’ve been seeing plenty of curious statements from Diddy’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of belief in his client. Here’s one of his statements about the notorious baby oil:

“I don't think it was 1,000 (bottles). I think it was a lot. I mean, there is a Costco right down the street. I think Americans buy in bulk, as we know.

And you know these are consensual adults doing what consensual adults do, you know, we can't get so puritanical in this country to think that somehow sex is a bad thing because if it was there would be no more people.”

He mentions Diddy not once in this. Instead, he is broad and wide, but why do that if he could offer up some facts in defence of his client?

He mentions the Costco, he mentions Americans buying in bulk. He doesn’t say Diddy shopped at the Costco OR that he bought in bulk!

And the curious use of “consensual adults”. The phrase normally used is “consenting adults”. That is, that the adults consented to what happened, they did something of their own free will.

Consensual implies they can give consent, not that they specifically did give consent.

If you want some more Diddy, then have a look at these two analysis videos.

Finally

The mole was contestant three. The biggest pointer for me was that their last statement talked about this being the end, whereas the other two contestants were talking about the future in their words. The other two also both talk about their guess as to the identity of the mole.

Until next time

Jack