5 ms·

"I took up running for fun. What I can tell you is that I did not cut. My last few marathons I have had to step off the course, looking for a place to pee. I di

"I took up running for fun. What I can tell you is that I did not cut. My last few marathons I have had to step off the course, looking for a place to pee. I didn’t know this was against the rules, I was not aware of that. I’ve done this several times. I’ve realized my problem is that I don’t hydrate properly. I have never cut the distance but I have stepped off of the course." Just analyzing the man's statements for basic "tells" of non-candor and non-forthrightness, like they do in law enforcement: 1) "What I can tell you is..." - That's a distancing, qualifying phrase - we might call it an abstraction layer. It's like there's an AnswerTheQuestion() method that instead of just returning an answer, has to first call the GetAThingToTellThem() method. Hmm interesting. Great separation of concerns if you're a computer program, but totally unnecessary if you're being concise and direct. 2) "What I can tell you is that I did not cut." - It's a non-denial denial. He doesn't actually say he didn't cut. He says he can tell you that he didn't cut. (OK go ahead and tell me then, whenever you're ready.) He can also tell me that he's a purple elephant that farts rainbows. 3) "...I did not cut" - Resorting to a formality by eschewing the contraction - using "did not" vs. "didn't." And I wouldn't make the usual allowance for Latin heritage, because he's a doctor and has been in the US for a long time, plus he uses contractions freely elsewhere (didn't, I've). 4) After starting two sentences with "I've", notice in the last sentence (the second it comes time for another direct denial), it goes back to formal language: "I have." 5) "I didn't know this was against the rules..." Getting defensive, trying to portray himself as a victim being persecuted unjustly (totally outside the normal purview of the usual rules which he thought he knew) and therefore deserving of sympathy. Also subtly attacking the interviewer for asking the question. Aggression is a big tell. 6) Overall does it seem to be just impartially reporting/presenting information or does it seem to be making a case or argument by "dressing up" the facts to favor himself? Notice the overall wordiness of the thing and the volunteering of superfluous information. I do this for fun. I don't hydrate properly (WTF does that mean, you tryin to say you drank too much water dawg?) None of these on their own would be inherently suspicious, and might have other explanations, but occurring all together like this, they're a billboard telling you "Take a closer look." Edit: Reply comments are starting to object along the lines that this doesn't prove anything. That is correct. The goal isn't to prove guilt; only evidence proves guilt. The goal is only to direct the course of the investigation. You're only looking for "warmer or colder." Keep going this direction or look somewhere else? That's why I conclude with "Take a closer look" and not "Please convict this person of a crime immediately." It's akin to a polygraph reading - fairly unscientific, generally inadmissible, but valuable in deciding what to do next in the investigation.

bardworx 7y ago
That’s quite an analysis but means nothing as words can be mixed or he can use non conjugated words to make sure there is no distortion. Also, I’m not a cop, but I grew up around a lot of cops. I spent many nights serving cops after their shift and listening to their stories. As such, I can say that your whole “this is how cops do it” is bullshit because it’s not admissible in court. What cops do is ask the same question a thousand different ways until you tell them the truth, hence the long sessions.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
arkades 7y ago
(1) Studies on the correlation between these sorts of linguistic tells and deceit tend to be very poorly designed. (2) they also tend to be massively over-interpreted. Oh, were people 10% more likely to look left if they were lying? “Looking left is a sign of deceit.” (3) I couldn’t find the source of the quote, but it’s worth noting that spoken language studies do not extrapolate to written statements at all. The same things that are a tell in an extemporaneous conversation are just signs of editing and preparation under other contexts. Preparing to make a public statement? All those signs that make it into the pop-sci lie detection books don’t apply.
stordoff 7y ago
> 1) "What I can tell you is..." "What I can tell you is that I did not cut" but I did step off the track, and that might be against the rules, so I can't say I didn't cheat - seems like a phrasing you could stumble into if you're trying to avoid saying something that isn't true. > It's a non-denial denial. He doesn't actually say he didn't cut. He does five sentences later: "I have never cut the distance". > Resorting to a formality by eschewing the contraction (thoguth ese above for next) / it goes back to formal language: "I have." If I'm being accused of something, I'm going to stress the "not", and say it more forcefully which could involve dropping the contradiction. I've noticed myself doing this for things that don't matter in the slightest. > Getting defensive, trying to portray himself as a victim being persecuted unjustly I didn't read it like that at all. It reads more like an explanation/justification for his behaviour, and a _bad_ one at that (it's on you to know the rules). > Notice the overall wordiness of the thing and the volunteering of superfluous information. Presumably it's a rehearsed statement (at least conceptually if not in the exact words), and he's trying to provide an explanation for his actions. It doesn't really seem superfluous. > WTF does that mean, you tryin to say you drank too much water dawg? Yes. Marathon runners can drink too much, putting them at risk of hyponatremia. Extrapolation guilt/suspicion from that seems dicey. None of it seems like something you couldn't say if you were being entirely truthful.

bardworx 7y ago

That’s quite an analysis but means nothing as words can be mixed or he can use non conjugated words to make sure there is no distortion. Also, I’m not a cop, but I grew up around a lot of cops. I spent many nights serving cops after their shift and listening to their stories. As such, I can say that your whole “this is how cops do it” is bullshit because it’s not admissible in court. What cops do is ask the same question a thousand different ways until you tell them the truth, hence the long sessions.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

arkades 7y ago

(1) Studies on the correlation between these sorts of linguistic tells and deceit tend to be very poorly designed. (2) they also tend to be massively over-interpreted. Oh, were people 10% more likely to look left if they were lying? “Looking left is a sign of deceit.” (3) I couldn’t find the source of the quote, but it’s worth noting that spoken language studies do not extrapolate to written statements at all. The same things that are a tell in an extemporaneous conversation are just signs of editing and preparation under other contexts. Preparing to make a public statement? All those signs that make it into the pop-sci lie detection books don’t apply.

stordoff 7y ago

> 1) "What I can tell you is..." "What I can tell you is that I did not cut" but I did step off the track, and that might be against the rules, so I can't say I didn't cheat - seems like a phrasing you could stumble into if you're trying to avoid saying something that isn't true. > It's a non-denial denial. He doesn't actually say he didn't cut. He does five sentences later: "I have never cut the distance". > Resorting to a formality by eschewing the contraction (thoguth ese above for next) / it goes back to formal language: "I have." If I'm being accused of something, I'm going to stress the "not", and say it more forcefully which could involve dropping the contradiction. I've noticed myself doing this for things that don't matter in the slightest. > Getting defensive, trying to portray himself as a victim being persecuted unjustly I didn't read it like that at all. It reads more like an explanation/justification for his behaviour, and a _bad_ one at that (it's on you to know the rules). > Notice the overall wordiness of the thing and the volunteering of superfluous information. Presumably it's a rehearsed statement (at least conceptually if not in the exact words), and he's trying to provide an explanation for his actions. It doesn't really seem superfluous. > WTF does that mean, you tryin to say you drank too much water dawg? Yes. Marathon runners can drink too much, putting them at risk of hyponatremia. Extrapolation guilt/suspicion from that seems dicey. None of it seems like something you couldn't say if you were being entirely truthful.