108 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
108 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
|
# 🧭 **Why I’m Taking My Research into the Field: A Forensic Technologist’s Path to Private Investigation**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This essay will unfold in seven structured sections, with high coherence and rhetorical resonance. The tone will be *rigorous but accessible*, *earnest without apology*, and *inviting without pandering*. Every section will serve to honor your background while opening a clear path toward field integration.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **I. Opening Witness: The Shift From Ivory Tower to Street-Level Truth**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Begin with a real moment or shift: *"I didn’t plan to become a PI."*
|
|||
|
|
* Highlight the internal awakening: a sense that something in your research had matured — and now demanded real-world grounding.
|
|||
|
|
* Acknowledge what most people don’t understand: research doesn’t always want to stay in the lab. Sometimes, it wants to walk the beat.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> **Purpose**: Ground the reader in a narrative moment. Make the shift feel human, real, and inevitable.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **II. From the Inside Out: My Uncommon Journey Through Cybersecurity, Affective Computing, and Narcissistic Pattern Detection**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Brief personal trajectory:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Associate's → Bachelor's → Master’s in InfoSec → PhD Fellowship in Emotion AI
|
|||
|
|
* Research on affective computing, sentiment analysis, narcissistic language markers
|
|||
|
|
* Over a decade of high-security and forensic systems experience
|
|||
|
|
* Introduce *Witness Fracture* and *The Recursive Claim* as artifacts of rigorous, applied linguistics and recursive forensics
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> **Purpose**: Establish credibility **without listing a resume**. Let your lived story show how you *earned* these tools, rather than just studied them.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **III. What I Learned the Hard Way: Language Is the Crime Scene**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Reveal the core epistemic insight:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Deception is not just in data, or behavior — it's in language structure.
|
|||
|
|
* Lies leave residue. Truth has coherence. Narcissists fracture narratives in recursive patterns.
|
|||
|
|
* Briefly name some of your key pattern concepts:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* *Empathic Bypass*, *Narrative Overcontrol*, *Truth Collapse Zones*
|
|||
|
|
* These patterns aren’t just theory. They show up — over and over — in real abuse, real fraud, real cases.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> **Purpose**: Make the technical feel real and grounded. Help the reader understand: this work isn't abstract. It's *felt*.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **IV. The Problem with the Current System: Good People Get Flagged, Bad People Slip Through**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Explain the limits of current fraud detection:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Rules-based systems, actuarial red flags, behavioral checklists
|
|||
|
|
* And the harm:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Trauma survivors often get flagged for inconsistency (which is *normal*)
|
|||
|
|
* Manipulators present as calm, organized, and "cooperative" — and pass undetected
|
|||
|
|
* Argue: We need better tools. Not just more automation. But a new kind of forensic empathy.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> **Purpose**: Highlight the practical failure of current models — and create demand for your framework without ever "selling."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **V. Why Private Investigation: The Field Is Where the Work Must Go**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Honest reflection: “I don’t fit the mold.”
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Most PIs don’t have my background. Most researchers don’t want a PI license.
|
|||
|
|
* But the truth? I’m not content with publishing papers and watching from the sidelines.
|
|||
|
|
* I want to walk with the work. Apply it. Prove it. Evolve it in the real world.
|
|||
|
|
* The PI field offers me not just a profession — but a crucible.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> **Purpose**: Address head-on what might confuse or intimidate readers. Reframe it as calling, not overqualification.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **VI. The Invitation: Collaboration, Mentorship, Field Alignment**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* I am looking for:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Licensed PIs who see the value in emergent tools
|
|||
|
|
* Law firms curious about forensic testimony
|
|||
|
|
* Insurers and legal teams tired of being fooled by polished liars
|
|||
|
|
* I’m not here to disrupt. I’m here to **align**.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* With integrity
|
|||
|
|
* With process
|
|||
|
|
* With quiet rigor
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> **Purpose**: Call in the right people. Let them feel they’re part of something emerging — not being replaced or overshadowed.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## **VII. Closing: Truth Deserves Better Tools**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* A final reflection:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* “The truth doesn’t scream. It echoes. And that echo lives in language.”
|
|||
|
|
* You’re ready now. To bring this method — and yourself — fully into the field.
|
|||
|
|
* A link to your paper (*The Recursive Claim*), Substack archive, and contact method.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 📎 Supplementary Options
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* A downloadable PDF version of the essay (styled, branded)
|
|||
|
|
* Substack formatting with section dividers, pull-quotes, and footnotes
|
|||
|
|
* Option to cross-post on LinkedIn or Medium for wider discoverability
|
|||
|
|
* Reference to “Publications” section in your CV
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|