Analysis:
Over the years, the Pelosis have made quite a bit of money in the stock market. Under normal circumstances, this would be fine. In this case however, there have been rumors of insider trading. The claim is that Speaker Pelosi gave her husband insider information. In the following article, I will analyze a video of Speaker Pelosi responding to that claim. The article will begin with a behaviour analysis of the video featuring Nancy Pelosi (provided above) and will end with my estimation of what the analysis means. If you’d like to skip the technical writing and get right to the answer, scroll to the bottom section labeled “What does it all mean?”
(The following is my perception of the content being analyzed. It is important to note that this is my analysis and does not reflect the opinions or beliefs of any other entity or group. This analysis uses scientific data to investigate. My intent is not to give my emotional reaction, but rather to only mention what can be backed by scientific reasoning. Understand also, that behaviours observed here do not necessarily indicate deception. There are many reasons a person can act oddly. Finally note, these observations are made from looking at this one short sampling of data. It is not meant to be applied as a generalization of the subject’s overall behaviour.)
Beginning of Analysis
A reporter asks: “Over the course of your career, has your husband ever made a stock purchase or sale based on information he received from you?”
Pelosi’s response: “No [loud exhale]. Absolutely not [pitch goes up very slightly on the word not]. Ok [pitch is now several notes higher than at the onset]. Thank you [pitch remains high then lowers on the word, you].”
- Interactional Style: First let’s discuss Pelosi’s interactional style. Here we’re paying attention to the words she uses, and the manner in which she uses them. Without digging too deeply, you can immediately observe a few things. Her flow, for example.
- She shows disfluency
- She avoids contractions
- Her speech seems rushed
- Her speech is uncomfortable
- Her pitch, volume and tone shift noticeably throughout her time speaking.
- Voice: Next, we’re going to look closely at Pelosi’s voice. Specifically, we are going to examine the areas of her statement wherein volume, pitch, and tone noticeably changed.
- Volume: Her volume drops when she says “no.” Low volume could mean deception, uncertainty, or a desire to hide something. Think about whispering. When you have something to hide, you whisper it, you don’t shout it. Similarly, if you lack confidence or are being intentionally unclear, your words may come out more muddled and difficult to understand. Her volume (rather, the intensity at which she is pushing out sound from her chest), then increases when she says, “thank you.” This could indicate an increase in emotion.
- Pitch: Her pitch rises when she says “ok” and “Thank you.” This pitch change is quite a jump from her pitch at the onset. A rise or fall in pitch generally signifies emotion. In this case, the pitch was raised. You see rising pitch with things like uncertainty, fear, excitement, anger and even frustration.
- Tone: Pelosi’s first response is an incredibly breathy “no.” This is important because it conveys a lack of conviction. It has no base and no confidence. If you are being accused of something that you are innocent of, especially if you are a leader within the USA, being accused of something like insider trading, your voice is not going to be weak and timid. It will be firm and confident. You’ll say, “NO, I didn’t do that.” Instead, Pelosi did a weird half laughing, avoidance, zero confidence thing. Her final words “thank you” are harsher than the rest of her response. This harsher response could be due to an increase in emotional stimulation. For example, if she is angry or annoyed.
- Face: The next area I want to go over is Pelosi’s facial expressions.
- Focus first on her lips. After the question is posed, Pelosi responds by saying “no,” and she closes her jaw. She then entirely closes her lips after she says “ok.” This is a change in pattern. As we can see at the beginning of the video, her resting position is with both her lips and jaw open. This is important because when a person closes their mouth, especially if it is a tight-lipped closed mouth, this could indicate an unwillingness to speak. Think for yourself when you remember doing this. Think back to a time when you remember someone saying something really stupid, but you were not allowed to respond. What did your mouth do? Did you tighten your lips and press them together? This is because you were stopping yourself from speaking. You may even be doing it now as you remember. This is a thing. You close your mouth when you don’t want to talk. You tighten it closed when you really don’t want to talk. If you see someone doing this, like we do in the Pelosi video, it could mean that that person is purposeful shutting themselves up.
- Now look at her eyes. After the question is asked, Pelosi’s eyes turn down and away from where they were originally focused (which was on the reporter). She is avoiding eye contact. Her blink rate also changes. While the reporter is asking her the question, she blinks at equidistant intervals 3 times (possible baseline). After the question registers and during her response, her blinking stops entirely. You tend to blink less when reading, listening, concentrating or during an increase in cognition. I might attribute this change in blink rate to impression management. Her brain may be working harder to manage her response. Blink rate can change for many reasons, not all are signs of deception.
- Body: Pelosi’s body language is another area that I found interesting.
- Notice her head movements. Specifically, when she says the word “no.” Her head moves in a half circle. This might be a gestural slip. Her body is saying something her mouth is not. Remember, an up-and-down nod of the head means yes, and a side-to-side shake of the head means no. This is a natural gesture for us in the United States. Sometimes, when you see a half circle or a full circle head movement, it could mean deception; your logical brain wants to lie, but your more primal brain wants to tell the truth.
- Pelosi exhibits proactive and reactive tension. Proactive tension is seen when Pelosi pushes the mic away after saying “absolutely not.” This is something you do as an offensive strategy. She is actively pushing away the object that projects her words. Reactive tension is seen when she moves away from the stand after saying “no.” She then steps away at “absolutely not,” and finally walks away while continuing to push away the mic at the end of the interview. Reactive tension is the opposite of proactive tension. Instead of trying to “fight” that which you want to avoid, you “run” from it. It is a defensive action. In this case, Pelosi actually walks off the stage.
- Psychophysiology: When the body is stressed, it is sometimes possible to notice a few things. While psychophysiology is the focus of what happens inside the body during times of heightened emotion, there can be outward signs that hint at how the body is responding internally. For example, think about the phrase, “you look like you’ve seen a ghost.” When people feel intense fear, you can see it in the color of their skin. Most notably, the face may become pale. This is because the blood is rushing away from your face and other unnecessary areas. It is then taken to areas deemed necessary like legs and arms. This is a central nervous system response. It’s known as the Freeze, Fight, or Flight response.
- In Pelosi’s case, I want to know why her “no” was so breathy. This could be due to internal reactions having to do with heart rate and/or respiration. This question made her lose her breath. Why?
What does it all mean?
Based on the video provided and understanding that it is not a perfect video sampling, I would say she is being less than totally honest. I think she is probably lying. I observed several interesting behaviours, across several behavioural channels, in less than seven seconds. At the very least, I would say she needs to be questioned further in this area.
It is important, especially when analyzing for deception, to gather as much data as possible. All of the information noted above could be innocent. However, if you observe many questionable behaviours, within a few seconds, it is less likely that this behaviour is innocent. That I was able to see so much, in the span of only five seconds, leads me to believe Pelosi was lying about not committing insider trading.
Photo imported from www.americanpatriotdaily.com
![](https://roaringright.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/fb.png)
For More Great Conservative Content
Follow us on Twitter at @roaringright for more great content. We appreciate you taking time to read and share our articles on Social media.
To keep up to date on the latest in conservative news, JOIN OUR FREE FACEBOOK GROUP by CLICKING HERE