10 Ways to Catch a Liar

  • Thread starter Thread starter a.saccus
  • Start date Start date
A

a.saccus

Guest
For the second day in a row I found something on the AOL welcome page of possible interest to Forum readers:

10 Ways to Catch a Liar

http://aolsvc.health.webmd.aol.com/content/article/127/116573.htm

J.J. Newberry said:
"About 4% of people are accomplished liars and they can do it well," says Newberry. "But because there are no Pinocchio responses to a lie, you have to catch them in it."
This seems to agree with the 4%--6% figure given for the percentage of psychopaths in the population by Lobaczewski and Cleckly.

Here's a reader's poll and the current results, followed by the article in its entirety. (My own opinion is that the 45% "Yes" figure is too high, or we wouldn't be where we are.)

Can You Spot a Liar?

45% Yes, I'm pretty perceptive
33% Sometimes, if I'm looking for a lie
21% No, I tend to take people at their word

Total Votes: 24,456

NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to (? vote, I assume? note message breaks off)
10 Ways to Catch a Liar

By Heather Hatfield
WebMD Feature

Reviewed By Louise Chang, MD


J.J. Newberry was a trained federal agent, skilled in the art of deception detection. So when a witness to a shooting sat in front of him and tried to tell him that when she heard gunshots she didn't look, she just ran -- he knew she was lying.

How did Newberry reach this conclusion? The answer is by recognizing telltale signs that a person isn't being honest, like inconsistencies in a story, behavior that's different from a person's norm, or too much detail in an explanation.

While using these signs to catch a liar takes extensive training and practice, it's no longer only for authorities like Newberry. Now, the average person can become adept at identifying dishonesty, and it's not as hard as you might think. Experts tell WebMD the top ten ways to let the truth be known.

Tip No. 1: Inconsistencies
"When you want to know if someone is lying, look for inconsistencies in what they are saying," says Newberry, who was a federal agent for 30 years and a police officer for five.

When the woman he was questioning said she ran and hid after hearing gunshots -- without looking -- Newberry saw the inconsistency immediately.

"There was something that just didn't fit," says Newberry. "She heard gunshots but she didn't look? I knew that was inconsistent with how a person would respond to a situation like that."

So when she wasn't paying attention, he banged on the table. She looked right at him.
"When a person hears a noise, it's a natural reaction to look toward it," Newberry tells WebMD. "I knew she heard those gunshots, looked in the direction from which they came, saw the shooter, and then ran."

Sure enough, he was right.

"Her story was just illogical," says Newberry. "And that's what you should look for when you're talking to someone who isn't being truthful. Are there inconsistencies that just don't fit?"

Tip No. 2: Ask the Unexpected
"About 4% of people are accomplished liars and they can do it well," says Newberry. "But because there are no Pinocchio responses to a lie, you have to catch them in it."

Sir Walter Scott put it best: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" But how can you a catch a person in his own web of lies?

"Watch them carefully," says Newberry. "And then when they don't expect it, ask them one question that they are not prepared to answer to trip them up."

Tip No. 3: Gauge Against a Baseline
"One of the most important indicators of dishonesty is changes in behavior," says Maureen O'Sullivan, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of San Francisco. "You want to pay attention to someone who is generally anxious, but now looks calm. Or, someone who is generally calm but now looks anxious."

The trick, explains O'Sullivan, is to gauge their behavior against a baseline. Is a person's behavior falling away from how they would normally act? If it is, that could mean that something is up.

Tip No. 4: Look for Insincere Emotions
"Most people can't fake smile," says O'Sullivan. "The timing will be wrong, it will be held too long, or it will be blended with other things. Maybe it will be a combination of an angry face with a smile; you can tell because their lips are smaller and less full than in a sincere smile."

These fake emotions are a good indicator that something has gone afoul.

Tip No. 5: Pay Attention to Gut Reactions
"People say, 'Oh, it was a gut reaction or women's intuition,' but what I think they are picking up on are the deviations of true emotions," O'Sullivan tells WebMD.

While an average person might not know what it is he's seeing when he thinks someone isn't being honest and attribute his suspicion to instinct, a scientist would be able to pinpoint it exactly -- which leads us to tip no. 6.

Tip No. 6: Watch for Microexpressions
When Joe Schmo has a gut feeling, Paul Ekman, a renowned expert in lie detection, sees microexpressions.

"A microexpression is a very brief expression, usually about a 25th of a second, that is always a concealed emotion," says Ekman, PhD, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco.

So when a person is acting happy, but in actuality is really upset about something, for instance, his true emotion will be revealed in a subconscious flash of anger on his face. Whether the concealed emotion is fear, anger, happiness, or jealousy, that feeling will appear on the face in the blink of an eye. The trick is to see it.

"Almost everyone -- 99% of those we've tested in about 10,000 people -- won't see them," says Ekman. "But it can be taught."

In fact, in less than an hour, the average person can learn to see microexpressions.

Tip No. 7: Look for Contradictions
"The general rule is anything that a person does with their voice or their gesture that doesn't fit the words they are saying can indicate a lie," says Ekman. "For example, this is going to sound amazing, but it is true. Sometimes when people are lying and saying, 'Yes, she's the one that took the money,' they will without knowing it make a slight head shake 'no.' That's a gesture and it completely contradicts what they're saying in words."

These contradictions, explains Ekman, can be between the voice and the words, the gesture and the voice, the gesture and the words, or the face and the words.

"It's some aspect of demeanor that is contradicting another aspect," Ekman tells WebMD.

Tip No. 8: A Sense of Unease
"When someone isn't making eye contact and that's against how they normally act, it can mean they're not being honest," says Jenn Berman, PhD, a psychologist in private practice. "They look away, they're sweating, they look uneasy ... anything that isn't normal and indicates anxiety."

Tip No. 9: Too Much Detail
"When you say to someone, 'Oh, where were you?' and they say, 'I went to the store and I needed to get eggs and milk and sugar and I almost hit a dog so I had to go slow,' and on and on, they're giving you too much detail," says Berman.

Too much detail could mean they've put a lot of thought into how they're going to get out of a situation and they've crafted a complicated lie as a solution.

Tip No. 10: Don't Ignore the Truth
"It's more important to recognize when someone is telling the truth than telling a lie because people can look like they're lying but be telling truth," says Newberry.

While it sounds confusing, finding the truth buried under a lie can sometimes help find the answer to an important question: Why is a person lying?

These 10 truth tips, experts agree, all help detect deception. What they don't do is tell you why a person is lying and what the lie means.

"Microexpressions don't tell you the reason," says Ekman. "They just tell you what the concealed emotion is and that there is an emotion being concealed."

When you think someone is lying, you have to either know the person well enough to understand why they might lie, or be a people expert.

"You can see a microexpression, but you have to have more social-emotional intelligence on people to use it accurately," says O'Sullivan. "You have to be a good judge of people to understand what it means."

Extra Tip: Be Trusting
"In general we have a choice about which stance we take in life," says Ekman. "If we take a suspicious stance life is not going to be too pleasant, but we won't get mislead very often. If we take a trusting stance, life is going to be a lot more pleasant but sometimes we are going to be taken in. As a parent or a friend, you're much better off being trusting rather than looking for lies all the time."

Published Sept. 4, 2006.

SOURCES:
Jenn Berman, PhD, psychologist, private practice, Beverly Hills, Calif.

Paul Ekman, PhD, professor emeritus of psychology, University of California Medical School, San Francisco.

J.J. Newberry, senior special agent (retired), U.S.Treasury Department; instructor, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Training Academy and Los Medanos College Police Academy.

Maureen O'Sullivan, PhD, professor of psychology, University of San Francisco.
Bartlett's Quotations on Bartleby web site.

"Heather Hatfield is a freelance health writer in Boston, Mass. She has her master's degree in health communication from Emerson College and Tufts University School of Medicine."
"Louise Chang, MD, is part of the WebMD medical editing team and is responsible for reviewing WebMD news and feature stories to ensure their medical accuracy. She has always considered herself a patient advocate and educator at heart. She has had broad experience of both inpatient and outpatient practice in urban and suburban settings. Dr. Chang shares the WebMD mission to provide the most accurate and useful medical information for people.

Dr. Chang completed her undergraduate degree at Stanford University and attended medical school at New York Medical College. She completed her internal medicine residency at Saint Vincent's Hospital in New York City, where she also served as a chief resident from 2001-2002. Immediately prior to joining WebMD, Dr. Chang worked as an attending physician and clinical instructor at Grady Memorial Hospital as part of the Emory School of Medicine in downtown Atlanta, seeing patients and working with and teaching medical residents and students.

Dr. Chang is board-certified in internal medicine. She is a member of both the American College of Physicians and the Society of General Internal Medicine. Her prior research work has been published and presented at regional and national conferences."
©2006 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.
Is it just my own personal paranoia that causes me to have trouble reconciling "Tip No. 10: Don't Ignore the Truth" and "Tip No. 1: Inconsistencies" and "Tip No. 7: Look for Contradictions" with the "Extra Tip: Be Trusting"?

Extra Tip: Be Trusting
"In general we have a choice about which stance we take in life," says Ekman. "If we take a suspicious stance life is not going to be too pleasant, but we won't get mislead very often. If we take a trusting stance, life is going to be a lot more pleasant but sometimes we are going to be taken in. As a parent or a friend, you're much better off being trusting rather than looking for lies all the time."
Or are the PTB using around 1400 words in a high profile venue (AOL) to try to persuade us that there are "experts" out there who can tell if we are lying ("Big Brother is Watching You") or "deviating from the Party line" so we are better off just being "trusting"? A kind of "Let me pretend to wake you up, OK now go back to sleep" tactic so prevalent in the modern media? I'm thinking here of Protocol No.9:

1. In applying our principles let attention be paid to the character of the people in whose country you live and act; a general, identical application of them, until such time as the people shall have been re-educated to our pattern, cannot have success. But by approaching their application cautiously you will see that not a decade will pass before the most stubborn character will change and we shall add a new people to the ranks of those already subdued by us.
 
It seems to me that an intellegent psychopath would defeat most of these
tips? Is that even possible? I say, don't underestimate the psychopath,
they can be clever and cunning.

I see the "tips" as simply too linear, and it does not account for the unnatural
human responses such as personal negative bias factors as to how a suspect
might look, talk, or has an attitude you may not like as an interrogator or simply
the suspect can be very ignorant and set off false red flags the tips are supposed
to detect? These tips are not hard-proven scientific facts, IMO.

Dunno. I am not completely convinced of these "valuable" tips. Maybe I am
too ignorant, and need to take a class how to become reprogrammed to accept
these as truths of the human psyche, *shrug*.
 
I think reading Mask of Sanity, Political Ponerology, or any of the other psychopath-oriented info is valuable.

These tips are just condensed non-sense designed to confuse the uninformed masses.

Detecting Liars requires knowledge, that takes effort to acquire. You can't read 10 tips and expect to be able to consistently detect fraud. If this were true, 90% + of Americans would be in DC right now demanding reorganization of our gov't and new elections.
 
I posted these tips because they were pertinent to one of the major themes of this Forum: Truth vs. Deception.

I don't think they are the final word on unmasking liars, as my comments at the end of the initial post were meant to imply, but merely that, from experience, they are a quite useful and workable set.

These tips are of a practical rather than a theoretical nature; they are meant for people who have to evaluate/supervise other people on a daily basis. I worked for fifteen years as a supervisor, a manager, and finally a recruiter/personnel manager, and so I was constantly involved in situations where people were telling me stories. It was my job to decide whether these stories were true or not. And since, of course, everybody was telling the truth all the time :), I had to develop some skills in penetrating beneath the stories to find out what really happened. This list is just one possible set of skills needed, quite similar to lists I would make up myself from my experience.

dant said:
It seems to me that an intelligent psychopath would defeat most of these tips?
Yes and no. It all depends on the relative skills of the psychopath and the person he-she is trying to fool. Detection of deception is an adversarial situation: the psychopath does his-her very best to deceive and the supervisor / detective / researcher does his-her very best to penetrate the psychopath's fabrication. From reading the C of Z, it's clear that psychopaths like Col. House, Bernard Baruch, and Chaim Weizmann deceived 99.9% of the human race. From reading Laura's and Lisa Giuliani's posts over the past few months, quite an impressive number of psychopaths and COINTELPRO operatives have been unmasked by use of some of these techniques. Each situation and each outcome is unique.

dant said:
I see the "tips" as simply too linear,[...]
I do not understand "...too linear..." in this context. Please explain.

dant said:
[...] and it does not account for the unnatural human responses such as personal negative bias factors as to how a suspect might look, talk, or has an attitude you may not like as an interrogator [...]
A baseball player who is blindfolded will not be able to hit or catch a ball. To the degree that a supervisor or interrogator permits "negative bias factors" to affect his-her judgment, that supervisor or interrogator will not be able to perform their job either. Their subjectivity will blind them just as surely as the blindfolded baseball player, and they will fail to detect and prove the deception.

dant said:
[...]or simply the suspect can be very ignorant and set off false red flags the tips are supposed to detect?
If the suspect, the liar, is "very ignorant," then they are probably not going to be able to fool a competent supervisor/interrogator.

If the suspect sets off alarms in the investigator's head, they will probably also not be successful; for the very last thing a psychopath wants to do is to make the investigator suspicious when they otherwise might not be.

A good example of this is the recent thread on Christopher Bollyn:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2887

Bollyn initially claimed that he was "Tazered" and then handcuffed. This sequence of events makes sense as an apprehension: subdued by the "Tazer", the mysterious agents were able to handcuff him. Whether the arrest was legal or justified was not clear from this information and was what was to be determined.

But later Bollyn claimed that he was handcuffed and THEN "Tazered". This is more than mere apprehension: this is torture of a defenseless man. The first scenario is bad enough, but the second is much, much worse-- and it generates correspondingly more fear. "Tip No. 1: Inconsistencies" and "Tip No. 7:Look for Contradictions" were some of the tips used in unmasking Bollyn. They were not the only counter-deception skills used, but they WERE used. Involved with logic and evidence, they are basic to any proof of deception.

WIKI said:
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own.
I do not believe that Heather Hatfield, author of the article, had "false flag operations" in mind when she wrote the article, yet the same set of rules COULD be used in an interrogation or cross-examination of the false-flag perpetrator(s) -- that is, if you could ever get the criminal into a situation where you could evaluate them properly. One of the psychopath's tricks is never to get into a situation where they have to answer the hard questions. That's why the President doesn't have press conferences any more: too many embarrassing questions.

These tips are not the entire skill set needed to unmask every liar, just a beginner set.

Cyre2067 said:
I think reading Mask of Sanity, Political Ponerology, or any of the other psychopath-oriented info is valuable.
I do too. Invaluable in fact.

The 10 Tips are geared at a basic, practical, hands-on level as I mentioned above. They are in no way capable of nor intended to replace either the Cleckley or the Lobaczewski. "Political Ponerology" is written at a high level of psychological abstraction. It gives a broad and superior understanding of the nature and origin of evil, something we have not seen before. And the "Mask of Sanity" describes in great detail the elusive phenomena we need to perceive when we meet the psychopath. Both of these books give a background and a context in which the 10 Tips are employed.

Cyre2067 said:
These tips are just condensed non-sense designed to confuse the uninformed masses.
I both agree and disagree with this statement.

They cannot be "non-sense", for they are used in countless practical situations -- such as the Bollyn Affair mentioned above -- and they work!

However, you have caught some of what I intended in my comment at the end of my initial post, where I point out that the PTB give us these tips to enhance our ability to detect deception --hence make us more suspicious -- and then tell us in the same breath to "Be Trusting". I was struck by the irony, and the contradiction: "Tip No. 7:Look for Contradictions." I suspect the operation is subtle and long-term, and is a process of briefly waking us up only to put us back to sleep as soon as they can. (Protocol No. 9) In that sense it IS "non-sense" -- but "non-sense" of a very special kind.

Cyre2067 said:
Detecting Liars requires knowledge, that takes effort to acquire. You can't read 10 tips and expect to be able to consistently detect fraud. If this were true, 90% + of Americans would be in DC right now demanding reorganization of our gov't and new elections.
I agree.

Of course, "You can't read 10 tips and expect to be able to consistently detect fraud."

But I DO think that if one doesn't learn the alphabet, one shouldn't expect to have much success later in reading books. The 10 Tips are just the beginning, the alphabet of detecting deception, as it were.

Sometimes it's nice to have a little checklist to go over, and see how many of the skills one has mastered. That' s all I intended in the post. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear initially.
 
Hi a.saccus, while I understand and agree with your general idea that there are certain things that may indicate falsification of any response or statement, I must point out that, in practice, with an essential psychopath, these would very likely fall woefully short.

asaccus said:
It seems to me that an intelligent psychopath would defeat most of these tips?

Yes and no. It all depends on the relative skills of the psychopath and the person he-she is trying to fool. Detection of deception is an adversarial situation: the psychopath does his-her very best to deceive and the supervisor / detective / researcher does his-her very best to penetrate the psychopath's fabrication. From reading the C of Z, it's clear that psychopaths like Col. House, Bernard Baruch, and Chaim Weizmann deceived 99.9% of the human race. From reading Laura's and Lisa Giuliani's posts over the past few months, quite an impressive number of psychopaths and COINTELPRO operatives have been unmasked by use of some of these techniques. Each situation and each outcome is unique.
This summation indicates that you have never come face to face with a genuine psychopath (lucky for you). A genetic psychopath's deception has very little, to nothing, to do with the 'relative skills' of the person they are dealing with - any normal human being - and, yes, I mean any normal human being will be fooled - with the possible exception of those who have been previously exposed and thus 'innoculated' against both the psychological and physiological effect of these predators.

It's pleasant to think that one could 'catch' what is going on with certain predetermined tools, but it has been my personal experience that things are simply not that cut and dried. Using Bollyn as an example of a true genetic psychopath is basically flawed, because according to all available indications, he is a bit 'underqualified' for that definition.

However, if one is looking to detect every day deception and falsification, these tools could certainly be helpful. Normal or quasi-normal, semi-ponerized human beings will give blatant, or even subtle, indications that they are not telling you the truth - and these tips you've listed will help to determine when this happens - however, it has been my experience that a genetic psychopath will never give these indications - they are, entirely, a different 'kettle of fish' - and only in-depth study of who and what they are, or an unfortunate run in with one in real life will supply the tools necessary to avoid them in the future - and, quite frankly, even that might not do the trick.
 
just one thing to add to this - the various guidelines above are, as anart says, useful in some circumstances. but, there is one BIG assumption that they make, which is that the liar has to hide his emotional reactions. As any study of psychopathy will show - a psychopath HAS NO emotional reactions to lying - it is completely 100% natural behaviour, so there is NO psychological or physiological reaction/resistance to be stealthed away.

In fact, it seems to be be even more than that: a psychopath actually has to hide when they are telling the TRUTH, because they have to fake the truthful emotional responses, as the 'real' emotion is completely lacking, but the appearance of it is socially necessary.
 
Hi, anart.

I went through your response and highlighted the areas of our agreement, of our disagreement, and of those responses leading to interesting speculations, in different colors. The result was just about equal in all three categories. And -- if I slightly altered some of my premises -- I could even agree with your point of view in the areas I disagreed before. Since this examination of underlying, unstated premises was so fruitful, I want to share it with you first, and then apply it to your responses. Because I think that when all is said and done, we're saying the same thing.

Premise 1.
I understand and accept the distinction of genetic, essential psychopaths as being a different race or type of creature from a normal, emotionally fully functioning human being. What I cannot accept is that being "eaten" by a psychopath is due to the fact they have skills and abilities I, as a normally functioning human being with a conscience, can never have. And that's because of Premise 2.

Premise 2.
Knowledge exists as a continuum from absolute ignorance to total omniscience -- essentially 1D to 7D. There are not two Knowledges, one for psychopaths and one for normals. Each individual, each being in the universe -- psychopathic or not -- exists somewhere along this continuum of Knowledge.

That means that ANY knowledge, ANY skill, ANY ability available to a psychopath is also available to a normal, healthy human -- who has received the proper training which, to use your terminology (which I'm totally comfortable with), is being "previously exposed and thus 'innoculated' against both the psychological and physiological effect of these predators." I just called it a type of learning. Were this not the case, if all knowledge were not potentially open to everybody, it would be impossible for a normal to EVER see through the deception of the psychopath -- even after they had been "eaten."

Where the psychopath differs from the normal, healthy human is in how the knowledge is used -- to serve good or to serve evil -- the moral dimension. The psychopath may find some things easier to do or find themselves more comfortable doing because of their genetics -- such as lying or slaughtering defenceless people -- and because they have no consicience. But for the good guys to survive they also have to be able to lie (and whatever) when the circumstances require it -- as when the Gestapo Agent Reinhard comes to your door and asks if you've seen your Jewish friend, Morrie, (who you are hiding upstairs in a secret passage) lately. There's no way out of this one: you lie or Morrie is one dead dude. Period.

And I'm not talking in any way about transforming a psychopath into a normal in a given lifetime. That seems to be a matter handled on a much longer time scale, where the STS individual gets recycled back into totally unconscious matter and starts the evolutionary process all over again.

Now that my premises have been made explicit (and thank you for your patience), I'm going to defer a line by line response to your post because it may not be necessary, because I started it and it was veeeery long, and because I would prefer to hear your input before I go off and explain things which may be perfectly clear to you.
 
sleepyvinny said:
[...]but, there is one BIG assumption that they make, which is that the liar has to hide his emotional reactions. As any study of psychopathy will show - a psychopath HAS NO emotional reactions to lying - it is completely 100% natural behaviour, so there is NO psychological or physiological reaction/resistance to be stealthed away.[...]
Hi vinny.

I think the generalization that psychopaths have no emotions is a pedagogical simplification necessary for those who are unaware of the existence of psychopaths. Once you know they're out there, you are in a position to understand more complex situations.

Robert D. Hare said:
KEY SYMPTOMS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Emotional / Interpersonal
--glib and superficial
--egocentric and grandiose
--lack of remorse or guilt
--lack of empathy
--deceitful or manipulative
--shallow emotions (my emphasis)
Robert D. Hare said:
Shallow Emotions
[...]Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty that limit's the range and depth of their feelings. While at times they appear cold and unemotional, they are prone to dramatic, shallow, and short-lived displays of feeling. Careful observers are left with the impression that they are play-acting and that little is going on below the surface.[...](my emphasis)
I do not believe ANY biological or genetic characteristic, including possessing or not possessing emotions, is 100%. And if psychopaths did have 0% emotions, then they would have to have 100% successful acting ability to remain undetected. But we know they exist. Ergo they're not 100% either way.

And note that Hare mentions "careful observers." If there were no clues, if there were nothing to observe, he would have said something like, "The most careful observers have been unable to detect under a variety of conditions whether psychopaths have emotions or not." He did not say that, so there IS something to see, and there is something we can learn.

Again, the 10 Tips are only a beginning, toddler steps to detection. I opened up AOL yesterday and there they were; I didn't have to look for them. It's not as if I conducted an extensive search and said to you "Here's the be-all and the end-all of psychopath detectors." It's more like a bag of trail mix I pass along as we walk down the road of life: if you're hungry, take some, it's a little nourishment, and pass the bag along. That's all. :)
 
a.saccus said:
I think the generalization that psychopaths have no emotions is a pedagogical simplification necessary for those who are unaware of the existence of psychopaths. Once you know they're out there, you are in a position to understand more complex situations.

I do not believe ANY biological or genetic characteristic, including possessing or not possessing emotions, is 100%. And if psychopaths did have 0% emotions, then they would have to have 100% successful acting ability to remain undetected. But we know they exist. Ergo they're not 100% either way.
I agree. I didn't mean to infer a 100% lack of emotions - as you say, that is a part of the biological machine. I wasn't very careful in how I explained it.

What I mean to express was that, according to the various studies, it seems that: a psychopath may have some emotional responses, but within a more limited spectrum, relating to feeding dynamics rather than to a 'conscience', perhaps you could say that they are more 'animalistic' emotions. More specifically the act of lying has no emotional repercussions, because there is no resistance to a 'conscience' - there is no inkling of lying being 'wrong' in any way, so in that way it is not an emotionally charged act (though in other ways there may be the 'thrill' of the possibility of being found out, etc.)

So, the initial 'how to detect a liar' checklist above, ignores this possibility that for some members of the population, lying has no conscience-based emotional content, which would be the major trigger for most of the 'detectable' clues listed, OSIT.
 
a.saccus said:
dant said:
I see the "tips" as simply too linear,[...]
I do not understand "...too linear..." in this context. Please explain.
I will try my best to explain what I mean by "too linear"... just recall that
the C's make it clear to us, that we 3d beings think much in a linear way
and that we need to make sure that we account for non-linear situations.

The rules (tips) are written in loosely coupled structure (like a rule-based "filter") and
given a (linear) set of input conditions, the output will produce a conclusive result?

What would happen if the structure itself was not constructed precisely so as to
include all possible permutations and combinations? What if the "input set" of
information is linear and cannot be "caught or trapped" by this structure so to
produce a positive identification? What if the "input set" is NON-linear?

Unfortunately, there too many variables, combinations, permutations on the part
of the interrogator and on the part of the suspect. There is also the possibility of
non-linear variables and espectially if these variables are being manipulated by
inside and outside influences including the self, and possibly by 1-5d entities?

I believe it is quite preposperous to assume that the interrogator would not be
infalable, that is, s/he would have to be 100% aware, 100% knowledgeable, 100%
controlling of all situations while doing the interrogation. In other words, must conform
to the structure which assumes all varibles and conditions in order to produce a conclusive
result.

For example the interrogator should not be affected by their own weaknesses, by the
environment, by distractions (noise, humidity changes, lightning effects, EM radiation,
chemical imbalances, "voices in your head"), and by outside influences. They must also
account for linear and non-linear variables (which is nearly, if not total impossible as 3d beings)
The same and other conditions can also apply to the suspect which makes it even more complicated
and these suspects may not be normal at all, but psychopaths or even other entities.

I am going to stop here as there are many more possibilities, but I think what I have
so far is sufficient enough to provide "food for thought" :)
 
sleepvinny said:
So, the initial 'how to detect a liar' checklist above, ignores this possibility that for some members of the population, lying has no conscience-based emotional content, which would be the major trigger for most of the 'detectable' clues listed, OSIT.
You are right; the 10 Tips list doesn't account for that, unfortunately.

If AOL ever gets around to putting up a list that DOES help the general public identify psychopaths, I will probably die of shock when I see it!:) Fortunately (for my health; unfortunately for the general public), there doesn't seem too much liklihood the PTB will let such information get too well known.:(
 
dant said:
I will try my best to explain what I mean by "too linear"[...]

[...] What would happen if the structure itself was not constructed precisely so as to include all possible permutations and combinations? [...]

Unfortunately, there too many variables, combinations, permutations on the part of the interrogator and on the part of the suspect. There is also the possibility of non-linear variables [...]

I believe it is quite preposterous to assume that the interrogator would be infallible, that is, s/he would have to be 100% aware, 100% knowledgeable, 100% controlling of all situations while doing the interrogation. In other words, must conform to the structure which assumes all varibles and conditions in order to produce a conclusive result.

[...]
Thank you. You explained what you meant quite clearly and now I understand and I completely agree with you. The 10 Tips are very basic ("too linear" indeed!) and are not meant to shoulder the whole burden of deception detection by themselves. Absolutely.

It seems that what was preventing me from understanding you was the fact that at the time of reading your post I, myself, was being a little too linear! :) Thank you.

dant said:
just recall that he C's make it clear to us, that we 3d beings think much in a linear way and that we need to make sure that we account for non-linear situations.
 
a.saccus said:
I understand and accept the distinction of genetic, essential psychopaths as being a different race or type of creature from a normal, emotionally fully functioning human being.
Yes, like a wolf or a hawk is a different type of creature than a human.

a.saccus said:
What I cannot accept is that being "eaten" by a psychopath is due to the fact they have skills and abilities I, as a normally functioning human being with a conscience, can never have.
Can you accept that you can never see as well as a hawk, or hear and smell as well as a wolf? If you understand that psychopaths are a "different animal", why then not accept that he has abilities that you, who is not a hawk/wolf/psychopath, simply cannot have?

a.saccus said:
Premise 2.
Knowledge exists as a continuum from absolute ignorance to total omniscience -- essentially 1D to 7D. There are not two Knowledges, one for psychopaths and one for normals. Each individual, each being in the universe -- psychopathic or not -- exists somewhere along this continuum of Knowledge.
There is more than knowledge. There's also perspective, a total level of being. The difference between you and a dog is more than you simply knowing more. The dog cannot possibly ever learn what you know, not in a billion years - not as long as it remains a dog. If you can understand that, can you see how it can be the same with a psychopath - as it too is a different animal?

a.saccus said:
That means that ANY knowledge, ANY skill, ANY ability available to a psychopath is also available to a normal, healthy human -- who has received the proper training
But this assumption/premise is incorrect - see above.


a.saccus said:
I do not believe ANY biological or genetic characteristic, including possessing or not possessing emotions, is 100%. And if psychopaths did have 0% emotions, then they would have to have 100% successful acting ability to remain undetected. But we know they exist. Ergo they're not 100% either way.
This is false logic. Amount of emotion is not inversely proportional to acting ability - that's another incorrect assumption upon which you build other statements. And on a separate but related note, our ability to see them is not only because of failure in their acting ability, it's also because we see that they lie, kill, pillage, manipulate, and distort reality. Whether they can or cannot act does not change what they DO, and their nature is seen from what they DO even before we address the fact that they "act" like real nice guys when it suits them.

a.saccus said:
And note that Hare mentions "careful observers." If there were no clues, if there were nothing to observe,
Again, you're building this upon your illogical/incorrect assumption above. 0% emotion does not equal 100% invisibility. The visibility of psychopaths in the world does not totally depend on their ability to act or disguise themselves - their presence is obvious by what they say and do, all of the effects of their existence - regardless of how well they can or cannot act!

a.saccus said:
Again, the 10 Tips are only a beginning, toddler steps to detection.
Gee, thanks! Just because I have a toddler as my avatar doesn't mean we're all toddlers here! :P

a.saccus said:
I opened up AOL yesterday and there they were; I didn't have to look for them.
Ask and you shall receive. Receive without asking and, well, bummer.

a.saccus said:
It's more like a bag of trail mix I pass along as we walk down the road of life: if you're hungry, take some, it's a little nourishment, and pass the bag along. That's all. smile
Who gave you this nourishment? AOL? AOL, a giant corporate entity run by psychopaths will never give nourishment for detection of psychopaths, not on purpose anyway.

a.saccus said:
I do not believe ANY biological or genetic characteristic, including possessing or not possessing emotions, is 100%.
What data is this belief based on? Is there any evidence that supports it?
 
Back
Top Bottom