A STEP BY STEP STRATEGY FOR IDENTIFYING / EXPOSING LIES AND HIDDEN MOTIVES
by Rob Ager © 2007
Introduction
The document can be used to uncover hidden motives / agendas in a variety of contexts. It also can be used to challenge liars and manipulators directly.
An important aspect of this is that genuinely positive motives are normally out in the open as there is less fear of reprisal. Hidden agendas are deliberately disguised and therefore it is imperative that a conscious effort be made to analyse and cross-reference human behaviour. Without this we become gullible and easily manipulated.
This investigative attitude can offend innocent parties. Therefore you should be covert and non-intrusive in your application of these methods. Legally, any individual has the right to analyse and assess the finer details of any binding document before committing a signature of consent. The parties they are considering making an agreement with do not have the right to observe or intrude upon this self-protecting process. Please try to think of the step by step procedure of this document in the same light.
Although, this document appears formal and almost of a legal nature, it can be applied to almost any situation in life, social, legal or otherwise, in which lies or manipulation occur. Consistent practice of these steps in relation to real situations in your life will lead to the process becoming automatic. Some steps will already be familiar to you and others may require more attention.
Finally, the steps do not have to be used in the exact sequence presented. The structure can be changed according to individual scenarios.
Glossary of terms and their meanings in this document
PROPOSAL – A specific change that a person / group is attempting to implement.
AGENT – The person / group who is instigating the proposal.
JUSTIFICATION – The reason / intention / aim that an agent expresses for introducing a proposal.
SECONDARY EFFECT – Any change that the proposal will cause, but which isn’t referred to as a justification.
INFLUENTIAL PARTY – any person / group who has influence over the agent. This influence could be a friendship, family tie, relationship, or a financial dependency.
ANALYST – The person who is researching / assessing a proposal for evidence of hidden agendas.
BENEFICIARIES – Anybody who benefits from the secondary effects of a proposal. This can include the agent themselves.
CASUALTIES – Anybody who is likely to suffer some form of loss or injustice brought on by the proposal and its secondary effects.
CONTROLLING PARTY – Any beneficiary who has been positively identified as the hidden instigator of the proposal.
BASIC OUTLINE
1 ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF THE PROPOSAL
2 IDENTIFY THE AGENTS MOTIVATIONAL DRIVES
3 IDENTIFY THE SECONDARY EFFECTS
4 IDENTIFY THE BENEFICIARIES & CASUALTIES
5 IDENTIFY THE INFLUENTIAL PARTIES
6 IDENTIFY THE CONTROLLING PARTIES
7 PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES
8 BLOCK THE PROPOSAL FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED
DETAILED BREAKDOWN
STEP ONE – ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF THE PROPOSAL
Will the proposal actually achieve the justification?
False justifications are often poorly thought out. An important aspect is the timing of the proposal. Genuine proposals for change usually come in response to something else that has happened. So it’s worth asking the agent questions as to how the proposal and its justification came into being.
STEP TWO – IDENTIFY THE AGENTS MOTIVATIONAL DRIVES
What is the personal and professional history of the agent?
What long term motives are recurrent in their history?
This alone can quickly reveal hidden agendas. You need to develop a rough idea of what the agent wants to achieve for themselves in the near and distant future.
STEP THREE – IDENTIFY THE SECONDARY EFFECTS
What else will happen as a direct result if the proposal is introduced?
What will be the knock-on effects?
What will the proposal affect in the long term?
This can be a long and detailed step as hidden motives can show up in the most seemingly unrelated areas. You may have to identify chains of knock on effects. Especially where business people are concerned, the hidden motives will be well hidden to avoid initial detection by the curious. In financial transactions complex maths and logistics can be involved.
STEP FOUR – IDENTIFY THE BENEFICIARIES & CASUALTIES
Who will benefit / suffer from the proposal and its secondary effects?
Who will gain / lose opportunities from the proposal and its secondary effects?
Will the agent themselves benefit / suffer from the secondary effects?
This will basically be a list of who benefits and who loses out if the proposal goes ahead.
STEP FIVE – IDENTIFY THE INFLUENTIAL PARTIES
Who does the agent know personally?
Who has regular contact with the agent?
Who is the agent dependent upon?
Who is the agent related to / friends with?
What groups / individuals has the agent been involved with in the past, which could still be influential?
Some influential parties are very easy to recognise – employer, spouse, family – and some are much more difficult – friends, membership of private clubs, financial investments.
STEP SIX – IDENTIFY THE CONTROLLING PARTIES
Which beneficiaries have connection to the agent?
Which beneficiaries might also be influential parties?
Which influential parties might also be beneficiaries?
If the influential parties are covertly instigating the proposal then … where will the proof be?
What tests can I do to reveal any controlling influences?
The first thing to do is to check whether the agent themselves are to gain from the proposal. If you haven’t already done it, compare the secondary effects of the proposal with the agents motivational drives.
You may also have to identify the motivational drives of the assorted beneficiaries as well. Compare this with the secondary effects also. Only the most rigorously hidden agendas will withstand this kind of inspection.
STEP SEVEN – PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES
Find alternative or modified proposals that will achieve the justification, but which also remove the secondary benefits for controlling parties and the losses for casualty parties.
The agents response can be very revealing about their actual motives. If they consistently refuse to accept any of the new proposals then it is likely that their justifications are actually lies to disguise hidden motives.
If you want to be really tactful you can offer a variety of proposals, each of which still includes satisfaction of a hidden agenda that you suspect. You are basically splitting up the list of possible hidden agendas so that each is isolated within a new proposal. The alternative proposal that the agent chooses can reveal which was the real hidden agenda.
The time taken to give a response is also an indicator. If the agent is acting on behalf of a controlling party then they may be unable to make a fast decision about your proposed alternatives until they have privately consulted with the controlling party.
STEP EIGHT – BLOCK THE PROPOSAL FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED
You can reject the proposal by openly stating the casualties list as your reason … or you can give false reasons for rejecting the proposal. This all depends on the dynamics of the specific scenario.
You can request explanation from the agent and / or controlling party about the discrepancies of agenda. This can be done in a way that appears to be innocent questioning or it can be done as a direct challenge of open suspicion. An assertive challenge, if it hits upon an actual hidden agenda, can provoke erratic and hence revealing responses. They may act offended to cover up the discomfort of being caught out.
In the case of proposals that effect large groups of people you can do the following …