3 ms·
I'd be skeptical of courses like that. Science has repeatedly found no evidence of this being an ability that you can learn. There's an entire industry peddli
by CSMastermind 4y ago
I'd be skeptical of courses like that. Science has repeatedly found no evidence of this being an ability that you can learn.
There's an entire industry peddling pseudoscience around it but there's basically no evidence that it works.
See this recent Skeptoid for a good summary: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4836 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4836
That episode quotes an opinion paper in Frontiers in Psychology, which I'll also do here:
> Is the rational course simply to drop this line of research? ...We have now sufficient evidence that there are no specific non-verbal behavioral signals that accompany lying or deceitful behavior. We can safely recommend that courts disregard such behavioral signals when appraising the credibility of victims, witnesses, and suspected offenders. For psychology and law researchers it may be time to move on.
- AlbertCory 4y agoI read that. Good article. I'm sure there are a lot of charlatans out there. On the theory of Skin In The Game: instead of doing these experiments like this, I would find a consistently winning poker player. Or a cop who's consistently caught suspects in lies. That is, people who've shown that they can detect lies. It might be that they can't even tell you what they do. Even worse, maybe they fail in these artificial experiments. I'd still hire the cop who's succeeded at it.