31–40 of 99 posts
Detecting lies would be a more-credible field if they purged their voodoo shamans first. It is fascinating that detecting lies is a field so full of frauds and liars.
There's something very Godelesque in that comment. It's kind of like having so many teachers who were weak students.
Is this an American trait? I think it's the opposite in Eastern Europe. People would stop you to tell you they've had a bad experience at the restaurant, usually don't compliment and interrupt you immediately to tell you what they think about your line of work.
As a former MI interrogator, this was part of my skillset. For the average layman looking to spot lies within a complex story there is an exceptionally simply method known as reverse chronological testing It works best for people you know are purposefully lying and you need a hook or a fallacy for proof. 1. Ask the person to recount their version of events. >> Oh so you went out with the girls at 7pm, then what happe…
The article's OK, but it doesn't actually deliver on the headline by illustrating the "tells" of a lie. This book is much more practical. http://www.amazon.com/Spy-Lie-Former-Officers-Deception/dp/1... One of the most interesting ideas is that no single tells indicates a lie, but clusters of them together are strong signals. A few would be: 1) pausing before you answer (lies take longer to compose than truths); 2) to…
This might be somewhat of an unfortunate list, as I tend to do 1, 2, 3, and 5 when I'm answering a nuanced question that requires a careful answer (i.e. non-technical family member asking if it's really possible for the NSA to spy on all of us)
Hardly anyone refrains from lying altogether, and some people report lying up to twelve times within that time span. I might open a conversation, for instance, by saying how nice it is to meet someone—when I’m really not at all happy about it. I might go on to say that I grew up in Boston—a lie, technically, since I really grew up in a small town about forty minutes outside the city. I could say that the person’s wor…
If we must call it lying, then we need a new word for when someone tells an intentional untruth with the intent to deceive.
As a former MI interrogator, this was part of my skillset. For the average layman looking to spot lies within a complex story there is an exceptionally simply method known as reverse chronological testing It works best for people you know are purposefully lying and you need a hook or a fallacy for proof. 1. Ask the person to recount their version of events. >> Oh so you went out with the girls at 7pm, then what happe…
I'm addle-brained, I don't get enough sleep, and I honestly don't remember if I got my daughter chocolate milk before or after diddling around on the computer.
I might very well remember events when asked to repeat them in reverse order that I did not remember the first time through, leave details out, or get the order reversed.
And while I can't manage to catch myself in the act while it is occurring, I've noticed myself having malleable memory of the likes that researchers tend to call "false memory". And this is just boring crap, nothing traumatic, stressful, or important.
If your test could fail for me recounting an evening at home for which I know I wouldn't be lying about, how could it possibly succeed for someone who's trying to prove to you that they aren't a killer, especially when they might have something else to hide (hey, I don't want this guy finding out I bought $1000 worth of pot to sell to my trashy neighbors in the trailer park!) ?
Well, there is a simple method: 1. Get the statement from the person that might be lying. 2. Find out what the truth was. If the truth is different than the statement, the person was lying. Recently uncovered famous liars, with this method, include James Clapper and Vladimir Putin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be somewhat of an unfortunate list, as I tend to do 1, 2, 3, and 5 when I'm answering a nuanced question that requires a careful answer (i.e. non-technical family member asking if it's really possible for the NSA to spy on all of us)
Yeah, I totally get it. I'm not saying they are absolute tells. But let's say you talk with somebody about an easy subject, during which they behave one way, and then you turn the discussion to a more sensitive topic that you suspect they may lie about. If they change their behavior from the established benchmark, then that can be one indicator in your diagnosis.
As a former MI interrogator, this was part of my skillset. For the average layman looking to spot lies within a complex story there is an exceptionally simply method known as reverse chronological testing It works best for people you know are purposefully lying and you need a hook or a fallacy for proof. 1. Ask the person to recount their version of events. >> Oh so you went out with the girls at 7pm, then what happe…
I've heard the exact opposite, that a truthful account will include extraneous detail because those details are part of the true memory that the person is replaying in their mind.