11 ms·
How to tell when someone is lying?
- flint 12y agoten Brinke
- Brajeshwar 12y agoHere is an interesting TED Video, "How to spot a liar." http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar
- vonnik 12y agoThe 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/1250029627 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) touching your face with your hand (blood rushes from your face when the fight-or-flight response kicks in, prompting an itching sensation); 3) fidgeting at the place where your body rests on something more solid (floor, chair, armrest); 4) vacillating between an appeasing and angry tone; 5) leaning away and closing your body language.
- dreamfactory2 12y agoThese are also all traits of social awkwardness
- goldenkey 12y agoSocially awkward people put as much effort into crafting their responses that a liar might. So the effect is in full force.
- pdeuchler 12y agoThis 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)
- ericHosick 12y agoI totally agree. Answering questions empathetically takes a lot of effort.
- vonnik 12y agoYeah, 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.
- nitrogen 12y agoCouldn't it also just indicate that you've switched from an easy to a difficult subject? All you're really reading is emotion, which may or may not indicate deception.
- vonnik 12y agoSure. But if you're asking someone where they were at the time of a crime -- e.g. Were you at Nicole Brown Simpson's house yesterday at 7pm? -- and that turns out to be a really difficult question for a person to answer, then maybe that's a signal that something more is going on.
- sachitgupta 12y agoPart of using these to test lies requires first establishing a baseline. For instance, they would ask: - What's your name? Where were you born? How much do you weigh? (or similar questions to understand your non-verbal). It's super super important to first establish that baseline.
- jtsnow 12y agoThis book is a decent guide to decoding body language (including, but not limited to, deception): http://www.amazon.com/What-Every-BODY-Saying-Speed-Reading/dp/0061438294/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Every-BODY-Saying-Speed-Reading/d... The author's approach is that you must observe a "baseline" of what is normal behavior for an individual in order to accurately read body language. He suggests looking for deviations from normal behavior along with clusters.
- morley 12y agoThese books sound like they're pushing type of pop psychology that the article says is bunk. From the article: When someone is lying, he looks up and to the side, as if searching for something. A liar fidgets and seems somehow nervous. Sometimes, he’ll scratch or pull his ear. He’ll hesitate, as if he’s not sure he wants to tell you something. These, however, are all “old wives’ tales,” Leanne ten Brinke, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley whose work focuses on detecting deception, told me. “The empirical literature just doesn’t bear that out.”
- rasz_pl 12y agoYou are starting with the assumption Police officer would be interested in the truth. Well, they are not, they are only interested in confessions/convictions.
- Crito 12y agoIt seems to me that under some circumstances, developing a skill for detecting liars could be dangerous. If you are good at catching liars, then your confidence in people who you do not belief to be lying could go up, which could in turn increase the damage done by false-negatives. Knowing that in all likelihood some of the people I interact with are sociopaths/psychopaths (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% of the population are, and most blend in with the general population), I distrust my own ability to determine when somebody is or is not lying to me. Being self-critical in this way limits the damage done by the few that will inevitably slip through.
- meowface 12y agoAre you suggesting that it is impossible to detect that a sociopath or psychopath is lying? They're probably better at it, partially because they do it so much and can practice, but I doubt any of them are infallible. That being said, it is indeed very risky to assume you can always detect lying, or even be certain that a particular person is lying. It's good to be wary but bad to be certain.
- ZenPro 12y agoLying, as a social interaction, actually has a net benefit to society allowing interaction between humans - it can avoid conflict, ill feeling, embarrassment, shame and a whole host of other negative scenarios. You are absolutely correct that it is risky to assume you can detect lying. Most of the time it is simply not in your best interest to even point out a lie let alone be wrong about it.
- Crito 12y agoI wouldn't say that I think it is impossible to detect when a sociopath/psychopath is lying, but I strongly suspect that I would not be good at it. Much of the body language and unease that is often associated with lying could be absent or minimized.
- DiabloD3 12y ago"How to tell when someone is lying? They open their mouths." -- Unknown
- Zigurd 12y agoDetecting 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.
- mathattack 12y agoThere's something very Godelesque in that comment. It's kind of like having so many teachers who were weak students.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y agoOr so many writers pretending to be hackers.
- jaekwon 12y agoI don't believe that any of us believe what we are writing.
- asgard1024 12y agoWell, 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.
- conanbatt 12y agoBesides being overly simplistic, because you cant always know what the truth was, or finding out can take you longer than the timing of the decision you have to make, its is also a flawed process: a person can truthfully say something false. Being wrong doesn't make you a liar.
- drdeca 12y agoIf what they said was false, then would the conclusion not be that they either held the belief incorrectly, misspoke, or were telling a lie? Not all false statements are lies (in what I believe to be the most common definitions) It might be occasionally useful to be able to distinguish between whether someone is telling a lie or is simply stating something false.
- joevandyk 12y agoA lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive". Emphasis on "deliberate intent to deceive".
- samstave 12y agoObama, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Bush I, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Clinton.... I mean -- the list is endless.
- 3rd3 12y agoThis sentence is false.
- flint 12y agoLiar!
- 12y ago
- laxatives 12y agoHow to delude yourself in to thinking you know more than you do?
- flint 12y agoIt's called a PhD
- ZenPro 12y agoAs 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 happened...? 2. A liar will naturally add more detail to try and manufacture credibility. Do not interrupt. Let them ramble. Silence from you will solicit more imaginings from them. 3. At the end of the tale, immediately ask them to recount the events in reverse. >> Why this works : It is almost impossible for untrained personnel to factually recall imaginative events that have not actually occurred. The brain has no factual reservoir from which to draw upon - the source material is fiction and does not lend itself to recall. In essence; the liar is trapped in a world they are trying to simultaneously create and remember. It's a hugely combative tactic though - if you use it, expect the situation to escalate hugely.
- saraid216 12y agoTo generalize the technique, it's basically (1) solicit detail repetitively and (2) wait for contradictions to show up in large quantities. It's most effective in specific situations, like interrogations, because you have an important subject under discussion for which the lies pertain to. In a setting like, say, "did you forget to call me last night?" it pays to remember that everyone lies instinctively and if you try to catch a lie, you will and it won't be worth it because it tells you nothing.
- ZenPro 12y agoNot quite - The technique you refer to already exists. It is distinct from reverse chronological. Approaches are numerous and to the layman the differences seem like semantics but they each have a specific use (I went into some detail on another answer above). However, something like "did you forget to call me last night?" is not a great example. The RC technique works for complex scenarios such as an individual lying about their whereabouts over a considerable period of time (>hours). It is not the technique of choice for specific incidents and in all honesty it would be useless. It also not a data-driven technique based on contradictions since the entire narrative is largely fiction. The proof is the inability of the subject to recall what they have stated to be fact. If you are interested, scrutiny by contradiction (the technique you kind of alluded to) is often accompanied by a sustained barrage of questioning. The two techniques together crack most liars quickly. They are unable to maintain the contradictions under the constant assault of questioning eventually resigning to the questioner. The best liars simply say nothing. Ever. Just simple denials/stonewalling followed by the occasional counter question. Did you steal it? >> No Did you steal it? >> No Did you steal it? >> No Did you steal it? >> No Did you steal it? >> Do you honestly think I would have stole it? Did you steal it? >> No
- mrcdima 12y agoAfter reading all of Paul Ekman's books, watching all episodes of Lie to Me, and reading various other pop-science books, articles, posts, and so on, all on body language and lie detection, the only honest conclusion I could reach was that if you really want to know if someone's lying you better know the truth beforehand. Though there is some science to the method, it ultimately relies on very complex combinations of all sorts of hints, clues, behaviors, all very ambiguous and hard to put to together. Applying this method to regular social interactions is even harder because you rarely get any feedback. You might determine that one person is lying but you might never get the chance to truly confirm your assessment. It's really hard to figure out what works and what doesn't. You might have a chance at improving if you're a detective (maybe lawyer?) and get to often interview people, ask questions and immediately (or at least at some point) get feedback on whether your truthfulness assessment was right or not but if you're just some regular person who has ordinary social interactions it's much harder to become a human lie detector.
- ZenPro 12y agoFor someone who has not actually served in a role with training (like that which you describe) you are remarkably astute about the realities of catching liars. It takes considerable planning and man hours to uncover a truth from an individual intent to keep it hidden, often involving stress, deprivation of some sort and considerable psychological manipulation. Not even necessarily a lie, simply a truth they are obfuscating. Since you are interested you could do worse than read the references behind this Quora answer. In terms of actual techniques to solicit withheld information - there are generally accepted to be 16 techniques which preclude enhanced interrogation such as calorie restriction, sleep deprivation etc. Bear in mind, as stated elsewhere, law enforcement do not interrogate. The military and intelligence organisations interrogate. You can research each one in detail. Direct Approach ...(just simply ask) Love of Comrades ...(this will help save their comrades...) Hate of Comrades (...they LEFT you...) Love of Family ...(your war is over, talk and you get to go home...) Identity Accuse ...(you are a criminal aren't you!) Silence ...(simply wait them out) Good Cop / Bad Cop We already know ...(so you might as well tell us and help yourself) Non-stop ...(Question after Question after Question) Confused ...(Pretending the liar is smarter than you and you need help) Pride/Ego ...(Congratulating the liar/restoring his pride) Pride/Ego ...(Destroying the ego of the liar for being caught) Fear Up ...(Scaring the liar Jack Bauer style) Fear Down ...(Allaying fears with words and gifts to build rapport) Without Hope ...(Making the prisoner see he is without any options) Incentive ...(providing the reward for cooperation)
- atacrawl 12y agoAny time this topic comes up, I think immediately of the Louise Woodward case (aka the British Nanny Case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case During the trial, much was made of Louise Woodward's odd demeanor on the stand; particularly, her propensity to awkwardly twist her mouth to stifle laughter during testimony. Many interpreted that as a sign of guilt, but my grandmother would laugh in a similar fashion whenever she was nervous or uncomfortable. Woodward struck me as genuine. On the other hand, at the end of the trial, the baby's mother read a statement to the court. Her delivery was cold, emotionless and oddly stable given the circumstances. It was unnerving, and I've never forgotten it.
- arbitrage 12y agoWhich is why it's a good thing that people are supposed to be judged based on facts, and not their popularity.
- goldenkey 12y agoPopularity is different from oddness.
- mynameishere 12y agoThe one time I was on a jury the judge specifically instructed the jurors to use our judgement in determining the credibility of anyone testifying. I don't think there's any way around it--everyone knows that perjury is a given on one side or the other.
- Joeri 12y agoJurors are still people, emotional judgements will get involved one way or the other. The fact that jury trials are driven by emotion instead of fact was driven home for me by the parachute murder trial, where there was only circumstantial evidence, yet a 30 year conviction was achieved mostly based on the odd demeanor of the accused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Murder
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- mapleoin 12y agoHardly 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 work sounds fascinating, when it’s no such thing, or compliment him on his (drab) tie or his (awful) shirt. And if the person mentions loving a certain downtown restaurant where I’ve had a terrible experience? I’m likely to just smile and nod and say, Yes, great place. Trust me: we often lie without giving it so much as a second thought. 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.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoThat's not lying. There's no intent to deceive - nobody is fooled. We know conventionally that he lives 'somewhere around Boston'; that he's offering an opening conversational gambit and not conveying emotional information; that we're confirming his right to enjoy something and not communicating a restaurant review. If we must call it lying, then we need a new word for when someone tells an intentional untruth with the intent to deceive.
- mapleoin 12y agoI would argue that lying is not deceiving. At least not all the time. Lying also has the meaning of intentionally telling a falsehood. And there is some deception involved, even if unintentional. Describing a restaurant you didn't like as what a great place simply reinforces the speaker's (monologuer's) impression, even though his interlocutor obviously believes it to be false. In the second part of the paragraph I quoted, the second person is basically just holding a mirror for the speaker in which he (the speaker) can admire and enlarge his own self, while the listener encourages and cheers him on. They are both fooled.
- ph0rque 12y ago
- thesimpsons1022 12y agoWhy would she kill the daughter when she had an ex-husband to take care of it? what the hell?
- arkad 12y agoThere is a scene in Polish crime movie "Psy" (great movie BTW, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105185/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105185/), where a bad guy answers this question by saying: "Noone ever lied with a car battery connected to his balls"
- oska 12y ago[1] Effectiveness of torture for interrogation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_torture_for_interrogation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_torture_for_in... [2] Torture Has a Long History ... of Not Working http://www.livescience.com/4651-torture-long-history-working.html http://www.livescience.com/4651-torture-long-history-working...
- Destitute 12y agoHere is the video that Brinke saw and identified her as lying, can you? http://vimeo.com/55997359 http://vimeo.com/55997359
- torbit 12y agoHer eyebrows are always high and apart (surprised). At the end she shakes her head when she says "it is hard not knowing where you kid is", but it is delayed so it can mean nothing.
- zvrba 12y agoBecause she holds her hand on her chin, and the hand is very active, she appears as if she were thinking really hard about what to say. A truly concerned parent wouldn't need to think hard.
- sirdogealot 12y agoMaybe it's just that the article was written by a woman. (As I could easily see my significant other behaving in this manner when she was "out with her girlfriends".) But, does anybody on HN actually relate to this paragraph below? >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 work sounds fascinating, when it’s no such thing, or compliment him on his (drab) tie or his (awful) shirt. And if the person mentions loving a certain downtown restaurant where I’ve had a terrible experience? I’m likely to just smile and nod and say, Yes, great place. I am proud to say that I relate to none of those examples. I would usually say "it was nice to meet you" when somebody I just met was parting ways just as a pleasantry that has to be said, not that I meant it. And not that the other person would assume that I actually genuinely meant that either. Ending a meeting with "It was nice to meet you" seems just as natural and called for as starting out with "Hello, my name is sirdogealot". Who goes home thrilled or even remembering the fact that somebody they met that day said "Nice to meet you"? I always am truthful about where I am from. If the person has never heard of my small home town, I would explain it's location to them. I wouldn't lie and say somebody's work sounds fascinating if it wasn't. If you haul boxes or flip burgers, I don't really care to hear about your job or your problems at work. In fact I find I don't congregate with people who hold boring jobs. It just gets too tedious hearing that you are unhappy and yet not bright enough to realize it and quit. I would never compliment somebody on their clothing if they actually looked like shit unless they I was trying to cheer them up, hit on them or get a job or something. If somebody suggests a terrible restaurant, I'll let them know why it's a bad choice. Like the restaurant that served me ants in my stir fry, or the place that gave me food poisoning on Christmas eve one year? No, I'm not eating at those places again. I don't care if I'm trying to win over my girlfriend's parents. If a place is shit I'll call it shit. Does the author think that her checkout clerk is lying to her when they systematically grunt out "have a nice day" as they pass her her grocery bags? Do you think the kid at the McDonald's counter is mocking you when he smiles at you? Do you think I'm lying to you when you ask "How are you doing?" and I only ever respond with "Oh, pretty good! How are you doing?" I might say that if I just woke up in the morning or if I had just been in a car crash but I'm not lying. I know that most people don't care to hear about your problems. So I don't bother them with them. Society is weird. There are a lot of odd things we do in society but I wouldn't misconstrue them all as lying.
- oska 12y agoShe confessed to murdering Karissa—she wanted to save her faltering relationship with her boyfriend, she told the court, and he’d told her that she would have to choose between him and the child—and described in quiet detail her daughter’s final moments. Is there any good research on the behaviour of women in these situations? Obviously this is the extreme case - murdering your own child to save your relationship with your partner - but I would be interested in broader research in this area on how mothers deal with disinterest or hostility to their offspring by a partner.