151–160 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see some hot-shot detective try to get a random number from 1-1000 out of my head by using those techniques. Yeah, he couldn't.
You might want to watch this in full before gambling on that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE In summary, you lose the moment you agree to talk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see some hot-shot detective try to get a random number from 1-1000 out of my head by using those techniques. Yeah, he couldn't.
You might want to watch this in full before gambling on that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE In summary, you lose the moment you agree to talk.
I’d be interested if anyone has experience of the UK system and if the same strategy of staying silent would be advised in the uk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most real life lies are also pretty low stakes. "Oh, I'd love to come to Aunt Mabel's party but I can't." "We should totally do lunch sometime."
Which is, of course, totally irrelevant. Nobody cares about detecting those lies. Where's the evidence that big lies are in any way related to little lies?
Best liar ever if you want to see how good some people’s poker face can be: Prison escapee convinces cop he is actually a jogger: https://youtu.be/vBrnBmUmVzI Liars of this type probably have been practicing in real situations where their lies got them something. I think most of us (non nefarious people) don’t have to deal with lies of real significance. I’ve lied at stand-up, and I’m sure people know it. It’s a poli…
This was good, and I mostly agree that using verbal strategies that amount to digging into/reviewing the details of what a person is claiming is the best way to detect liars. The TSA thing at the end seems like a bit of a derail though: But, Mann says, without knowing how many would-be terrorists slipped through security undetected, the success of such a program cannot be measured. And, in fact, in 2015 the acting he…
This allows them to easily deflect potential racial screening complaints.
"The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time -- and then shut up." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Two ways to lie, say something false or only give 1/2 of the story.
We evolved to be effective deceivers, so if there was a systemic and obvious physical tell (looking left = liar) then evolution would try to eliminate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When studying sculpture a tutor talked to me about people making “things that look like art”, which really stuck with me - they made objects that mimicked what they thought art should be like, but had a kind of conceptual hollowness. I think Malcolm Gladwell is similar in that he produces content that has the appearance of science, but once you start digging it doesn’t hold up. A bit like a version of “truthiness”, e…
Oh right, art elitism as counter example, great. Who gets to define what I see as art? "conceptual hollowness" - that sounds nothing but esoteric to begin with. Reminds me of the (German) "Hurz"... event ( https://youtu.be/MJ7jbQJXF68 ). I hate posting anything negative but sorry, this was just too much. Oh and I admit I actually didn't dislike the third of one Gladwell's book I once read, as well as a presentation h…
I listened to his podcast history of napalm, and found it compelling and interesting (but then I'm not a historian, so perhaps it's Murray Gell-Mann amnesia!) So I have more time for his historical work, partially because history is a kind of storytelling.
Science is not the same as history, and needs to be judged by different metrics. This is where he falls down.
People that are good at lying will specialize in bluffing professions (smuggler, conman, undercover, sales, politics, gambling) and people good at spotting lies will specialize in interrogative jobs (police, inspection, acquiring business, teacher, journalist, border control).
This is an arms race where specific interrogators may specialize in specific liars or specific type of lies. The problem appears when there is a mismatch between the interrogator vs the suspect or if the interrogator is just incompetent. Or maybe the suspect is just a awkward person, or has a guilty rest face. Yes spotting a lie is by far not 100% correct.
To now conclude that spotting lies never works is basically claiming the whole range of aforementioned professions may just as well be done by inexperienced people, so why would one then ever hire a experienced journalist or interrogator?
David Simon's book, Homicide, has an apropos section: """Terry McLarney once mused that the best way to unsettle a suspect would be to post in all three interrogation rooms a written list of those behavior patterns that indicate deception: Uncooperative. Too cooperative. Talks too much. Talks too little. Gets his story perfectly straight. Fucks his story up. Blinks too much, avoids eye contact. Doesn’t blink. Stares.…