Like any field of analysis, one always begins with the credibility of the source. Does the person have a reason to lie or tell the truth? If a person is hurting himself or herself then they are likely telling the truth, but that is only a general guideline. Lies are much harder to detect from only the speaker. Next analyze the audience of the comment. If a person is talking to a close ally you can take it as a much stronger “fact” than if they are talking to someone not in a close alliance. If it’s someone not in a close alliance, you must consider what they are trying to get this person to do or think. Then evaluate the truth or falsehood of the statement.

2. What is being repeated?

When a HG makes a statement repeatedly it is because they are trying to convince someone of something they normally don’t believe. This can be another person or themselves. If you hear someone say the same thing repeatedly, look to see who it’s to. If it’s to the same person then likely the speaker is trying to convince that person of something they don’t think the person will believe. They compensate by saying it over and over. If a person repeats something to everyone its generally because they themselves don’t believe it. They tell everyone so as to convince them and try to make it true by sheer willpower. They might not even know that they don’t believe it, but subconsciously the repetition to anyone and everyone indicates a level of skepticism.

3. What are we not seeing and what are we not hearing?

Often you can learn a lot by what isn’t even there. For example, if you have witnessed a long conversation where one party then went to a third party and started to retell the story. However you notice that a very large and important piece is completely left out. Why did they leave it out? What did they gain or how did they color the story from leaving the information out. This only works with major pieces of information though as in the heat of the moment a person will very likely forget several of the smaller details and therefore you can’t really make an effective case off a person leaving out something small. Also if the conversation is different when a certain person is not there then consistently then start to question what the implications are and identify what kind of information is not being given to that individual

4. What do I know that the speakers do not know?

Another important piece of information to consider is the speaker’s fact base. We the viewers see vastly more information than the individual HGs. Sometimes the viewer can get furious for a HG making a mistake or making a dumb nomination when in fact the speaker is making the most informed decision based off of the current fact base. So when analyzing what they are saying, evaluate the intelligence of the play based off what they know now what you know. Then analyze how the game as a whole is going based off what you know.

5. Is this interchange “truly” significant?

The HGs are secluded in one house and see the same people day in day out with none of their normal comforts. This results in complaining, as misery loves company. As a result people will often in complaining say things they don’t even really believe but it helps them to pass the time to have something to complain about. So when you see b****ing and moaning, take the information passed in this time with less validity than you would take information passed in a strategy meeting. Do not however totally discard the complaining, generally there is a nugget of truth at the center.

When properly used these five questions allow the viewer of the feeds to see past what is done and what is said strictly on camera. It allows the viewer to focus on the true state of the house and alliances. You will not always be right in your analysis, but these questions will help you to be right a lot more often than you are wrong.

Email questions/remarks to the Joker's Mailbag