How to tell when someone is lying?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
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.
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)
They work reasonably well if a frontal face picture can be captured.
There is something dangerous in believing you have the key to knowing when someone is lying or not: if you are confident someone is lying you are more likely to disregard facts or evidence, to justify your hunch.
Criminal profilers might qualify as experts in court, saying someone "fits the profile", helping the state make a case, while their profiling could be totally wrong, as it was in the famous sniper case, where they went with the classic "middle aged caucasian" and the killer was black and with his son(?) as an accomplice.
Even worse when you go through TSA, where the justifiable hunches are almost certainly ethnically biased.
I respect law enforcements developed intuition to know "something might be happening", but would never take that as more than a football player thinking he will score the next goal.
What case is this? Also, is "middle ages caucasian" some kind of trope in police investigations? I wasn't aware it was…
"It was widely speculated that a single sniper, initially identified as a white man with assumed military experience, was using the Interstate 495 Capital Beltway for travel, possibly in a white van or truck. It was later learned that the rampage was perpetrated by John Allen Muhammad, and a minor, Lee Boyd Malvo, then aged 17 and originally from Jamaica, driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice sedan."
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.
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.
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
Did you steal it?
>> No
Did you steal it?
>> What makes you think asking the same question again will get a different answer?
Did you steal it?
(Silence)
And in a court, the second question would prompt an objection of "asked and answered" for the same reason.
On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to. In particular, they'd ask questions for which it would be more unusual for someone to refuse to respond:
Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
Do you know Bob?
Where were you at the time?
Do you know anyone who might have reason to ...?
A: Ok, you didn't steal it, but where were you last night?
B: I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Fast forward 20 minutes...
A: So let me confirm this one more time, you were busy last night, had dinner with your friend Bob, then went out for a drink?
Gauge their response, see if they correct you and say no, they met Bob after dinner, sticking to their original facts.
>> "Does it matter where I was? You just said I didn't steal it. So you believe me right?"
Now your questioning has gone off the rails and your subject has placed the emphasis on you justifying your reasoning.
Even the follow up questions you have utterly smack of a Columbo-like approach which really only works in movies.
>> A: So let me confirm this one more time, you were busy last night, had dinner with your friend Bob, then went out for a drink?
Response : "Why do you need it confirmed? We have been over this. Are you asking if I was busy all night?"
^^
Not to mention in your own example you have proven why you would be terrible at this.
You wrote the answer of the subject as saying I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Then you tried to follow up with "...had dinner with your friend Bob.
At no point did the subject say that, they said they had dinner and then met Bob for a drink. So you are seeking a false confirmation for a version of events the questioner has manufactured.
Just because I typed up a quick example (which exactly exists and is used to crack a suspect in certain examples) you have launched into some sort of critique of one written example, of one segment, of one technique of one fictional scenario.
Then proceeded to offer a handful of lines of advice as if you are somehow rewriting the techniques of tactical questioners everywhere.
However, since you offered advice, let me offer you some.
1. We never specified we are in Court. That is not tactical questioning, it is cross examination and techniques exist for that.
2. >> On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to.
Actually they absolutely will not do that. They will begin by asking the subject to just walk them through the entire <insert event/subject> in it's entirety and without interruption.
3. >> Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
That is a horrible question.
Have you established they were in the area? Do you want confirmation of someone suspicious or something suspicious? Why have you asked a closed question? Have you defined the area? have you defined the timebox you are referring to in the area?
^^
I am being overly harsh but that is what happens when you try to impose your criticism on a tiny aspect of complex science.
I bring this up more because this is the kind of thing most people are interested in lie detection for, and they're hoping to get an excuse to say "Aha! I caught you!" as if that was proof of anything.
Most people aren't in MI, or police detectives, which is the lion's share of relevance.
I only referred to one technique for checking the veracity of a complex story.
There is a reason this role exists as a trade with considerable training.
Everyone? My first reaction to that question would be "Apparently.", followed by trying to find out more detail (such as what I was supposed to have called about).
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!) ?
that is the point. If MI (or any other government force agency) got their paws on you, then you're guilty, and it is just a matter of routine effort to come up with what you're guilty of. The only choice you have is whether it happens a hard or an easy way... As they say in my old country - "for a given man, he always can be found guilty of something" (original - "byl by chelovek, a vina naydetsya" :)
The inherent bias and paranoia in your statement is staggering. Although, it's understandable if you come from a country with a particularly brutal and pervasive secret police.
In my country, the intelligence agencies have no powers of arrest and must defer to police enforcement.
People seem to be imagining an interrogator walks in, opens his notes, asks for a reverse version of events and says
Aha, you originally said you left the house at 7, but in you reverse statement you indicate it was 7.30, case closed. This guy is done.
The reverse technique, one of dozens is used to test accuracy and clarity when required to do so with brevity.
In my example I imagined a wife being questioned by a husband as he suspects an affair.
Most people, when put under pressure and are lying will fail the RC test spectacularly.
The majority of truth tellers may clarify aspects in their mind but they will by and large get all of the details correct.
Either way, the test is not in a vacuum.
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.
Having said that, as a lay person, I would be concerned about false positives. Memory is associative, so even with a truth teller, I would expect more detailed and accurate recollection when told in chronological order then reverse-chronological order.
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.
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://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.
Answering questions empathetically takes a lot of effort.
- 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.
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.
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.”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.
If we must call it lying, then we need a new word for when someone tells an intentional untruth with the intent to deceive.
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.
When Americans ask me where I was born, I don't say the actual country that no longer exists (USSR) nor the country that it is called now (Kazakhstan). I simply say Russia. The reason is that it's simpler for Americans to understand Russia.
Maybe you wish to have imparted your culture or something, however I don't expect most people have any reasonable idea what the culture is like in neither Russia nor Kazakhstan.
Are you just hoping they know where it is on the map?
It's going to be different in Eastern Europe because there's more tradition. Compare it to older generations in America. I know my grandparents would never sugar coat a story, and if I said I had a great time at a restaurant, they would have no trouble interrupting to talk about that time they got food poisoning there, or saw a mouse on the floor.
> ... we lie, on average, three times during a routine ten-minute conversation with a stranger or casual acquaintance. Hardly anyone refrains from lying altogether, and some people report lying up to twelve times within that time span.
It sounds like there's a large variance; maybe the author is on the "twelve times" side of the distribution. Or maybe I'm naive. I can't imagine telling someone I like a restaurant just because he does, or giving a false compliment without a concrete reason.
(I'm American.)
Or maybe I'm a freak in my own culture. I don't lie like this article describes.
I've always associated low self-esteem with the need to rampantly lie. The inability to properly deal with reality, so the person prefers to fake it and avoid any potential mental or emotional confrontations. That's just an opinion of course.
I know an awful lot of people that will 'tell it how it is' rather than pretending to eg like a restaurant when they really don't. In fact, there is a historical stereotype about Americans that we're direct / blunt. The reality is, America has possessed a relatively large population + diverse culture for a long time, and accordingly it makes little sense to broadly stereotype the people that live here.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
> I am proud to say that I relate to none of those examples.
I can relate to the one I highlighted. People ask me where I'm from all the time. Usually, I'll ask what they mean, but if they press the issue I have to delve deeper:
"I'm from the United States."
"If I answered you, would that mean anything to you?"
"California."
"Near San Francisco. (well, actually a few hours away)"
"Santa Cruz."
"Actually, a suburb about 20 minutes away from Santa Cruz. According to the post office, it's in Watsonville, but according to itself it's named La Selva Beach."
Generally people have heard of San Francisco, but having heard of Santa Cruz is rare and obviously no one has ever heard of La Selva Beach unless they actually live there themselves.
It's always mystifying to me why people ask this question which is (a) incredibly awkward to answer, and (b) completely meaningless to them no matter how I choose to answer it. So virtually 100% of the time I'll answer "near San Francisco" (not a lie, but not particularly informative) or "Santa Cruz" (much more accurate, but also a lie).
If they ask me where my hometown is, I have to probe even further: The place where I was born? The first place I can remember? The place where I went to elementary school? The place where I went to middle school, high school, and college? And when I try to find out what they mean by the question, far and away the most common response is to be annoyed that I found their question confusing (never mind that they don't have an answer when I ask what they meant... apparently I should have just made something up).
So I can understand why people lie, even though I hate doing it. The social pressure here is enormous, and over a completely meaningless question.
Hell, starting with the last one, where you say exactly where it is, and even going on to describe what it's like, what's nice about it, etc is the way the question was INTENDED to be answered.
Well, if Michael Corleone takes the stand to affirm that he doesn't know what anyone is talking about, he is not and has never been a mob boss, and in fact no one in his family has ever been a mob boss, that won't surprise anyone (they might be surprised that he agreed to testify in the first place, but no one will be surprised by what he says). Can we conclude that he isn't lying?
You exemplify that with the "nice to meet you" and "pretty good, how are you" examples. You don't want to act weird, so you lie.
I choose to know a small number of people very well. It doesn't interest me to know a large number of people hardly at all.
If I wanted to "up my social skills" and "gain tons of 'friends'" I could easily do that I would think. Simply by mimicing the flaky personality described in the article and sure, everyone loves a yes-man.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Emphasis on "deliberate intent to deceive".