How can you tell if someone is lying?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
How can you tell if someone is lying?
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/03/how-to-spot-a-liar/618425/
362 comments
Countless times when I was a kid (and sometimes now) people thought I lied when I was innocent because of timidity (and not diagnosed but maybe on the spectrum), so yeah I was unsettled. Uncontrollable smiles were the worst ("that makes you laugh!"). I can’t blame neurotypical people for having heuristics, but I’m still afraid to be interrogated in something serious with my reactions analyzed.
The article shows neurotypical people should have the same concerns. Interogators who think they know how to spot lying are usually wrong, regardless of whether they are interviewing neurotypical people or people on the spectrum.
I'm not on the spectrum, but I was a rebellious kid who didn't like to take shit from teachers. My defiant and sarcastic reactions to accusations were often considered evidence that I'd done wrong when I was innocent.
It's not that lie-spotting heuristics work better for neurotypical people or worse for people on the spectrum. They don't work at all for anyone. We're all in the same boat.
I'm not on the spectrum, but I was a rebellious kid who didn't like to take shit from teachers. My defiant and sarcastic reactions to accusations were often considered evidence that I'd done wrong when I was innocent.
It's not that lie-spotting heuristics work better for neurotypical people or worse for people on the spectrum. They don't work at all for anyone. We're all in the same boat.
"My defiant and sarcastic reactions to accusations were often considered evidence that I'd done wrong when I was innocent."
You were rebellious. From the point of view of a common teacher, that means you are not innocent. There is actually a old common saying, when some kid got a beaten, but it later turned out to be not guilty of that ... "well, he deserved it anyway" or "well, then the beating was in advance for something he is about to do" "or some other hidden sin", instead of a apology.
Which means self fulfilling prophecy. Punishing someome for something they didn't do - and for sure there will be reasons later on for things they will have done.
There are still way too many teachers and alike, who think a childs free spirit needs to be broken first, before they can learn something useful.
You were rebellious. From the point of view of a common teacher, that means you are not innocent. There is actually a old common saying, when some kid got a beaten, but it later turned out to be not guilty of that ... "well, he deserved it anyway" or "well, then the beating was in advance for something he is about to do" "or some other hidden sin", instead of a apology.
Which means self fulfilling prophecy. Punishing someome for something they didn't do - and for sure there will be reasons later on for things they will have done.
There are still way too many teachers and alike, who think a childs free spirit needs to be broken first, before they can learn something useful.
Having been through army basic training, I can confirm this is not an attitude unique to school teachers. To be fair, discipline and self control is incredibly valuable even if it’s not the be all and end all.
"To be fair, discipline and self control is incredibly valuable"
It is!
But you don't need to break someone, to help them learn it. Breaking people is just the cheapest method.
It is!
But you don't need to break someone, to help them learn it. Breaking people is just the cheapest method.
It's more like people wanting to be done with it using any excuse. I don't think jobsworths would particularly care who did what, they wanted things to go away. They were probably paid so little it made no sense to play a detective.
[deleted]
Well to be fair, even if you weren’t in the wrong at first, a sarcastic response to a teacher does put you in the wrong...
Well to be fair, you shouldn't accuse someone of something they aren't, or something they didn't do.
For instance, it'd be incredibly unfair for me to accuse you of being a jackass for a comment like this, when I know nothing about you... it'd also be equally unfair for me to assume you're an authoritarian... because I don't know anything about you, and therefore have no reason to make such an assumption.
Sort of like the teachers in the prior comments.
For instance, it'd be incredibly unfair for me to accuse you of being a jackass for a comment like this, when I know nothing about you... it'd also be equally unfair for me to assume you're an authoritarian... because I don't know anything about you, and therefore have no reason to make such an assumption.
Sort of like the teachers in the prior comments.
For being sarcastic. You shouldn’t be punished for everything at that point.
[deleted]
I remember being berated for uncontrollably smiling as a fear response. In one sense, it was a good lesson - smiling at people who are angry with you can make them angrier. But it was also a lesson in abject helplessness: interacting with people who have power over you will result in arbitrary, potentially unbounded pain and your best efforts to “play the game” will fail. Internalizing that lesson has done me very little good!
You get better with practice.
I had a time where a group of bullies picked up the innovation of using the school administration to harass. So I found myself in the situation of having chats with the principal a few times a week.
The optimal strategy was to courteously deny and be silent. It works over half the time. I’d also use my time waiting around to “charm” the support staff by being nice to them and making myself useful. Eventually, most disciplinary referrals ended up getting lost, as the secretaries clued up to what was happening.
I had a time where a group of bullies picked up the innovation of using the school administration to harass. So I found myself in the situation of having chats with the principal a few times a week.
The optimal strategy was to courteously deny and be silent. It works over half the time. I’d also use my time waiting around to “charm” the support staff by being nice to them and making myself useful. Eventually, most disciplinary referrals ended up getting lost, as the secretaries clued up to what was happening.
My high school was a similar object lesson in how the world actually works. I went from almost getting expelled freshman year for "breaking the library computer"[1] to having the assistant principal accept, but probably not believe, every word I said over underclassmen in any sort of conflict.
[1]
[1]
10 PRINT "C:\> "
20 READ
30 PRINT "Bad command or file name"
40 GOTO 10Hey I did the same but added SOUND RND (1000,1,-1) or whatever it was to an entire bank of econet computers.
We were in the class next door that had one computer and we could hear it go off.
Hilarious hijinks until caught/blabbed on. Serious business afterwards. Teachers are scared shitless of computers even now and ‘hacking’ back then... well, I was waiting for MI6 to come get me.
We were in the class next door that had one computer and we could hear it go off.
Hilarious hijinks until caught/blabbed on. Serious business afterwards. Teachers are scared shitless of computers even now and ‘hacking’ back then... well, I was waiting for MI6 to come get me.
My bro has a thyroid condition. So he doesn't blink, holds eye contact. We were cold busted so many times as kids. Often with physical evidence. He always got off.
I was a fairly disruptive kid in school. It was all boyswillbeboys stuf. Drinking and smoking with friends in abandoned sections of the school. The kind of stuff that seems really serious then, and inconsequential now.
I was brought in front of the board for expulsion after a litany of these types of things, and questioned about anything and everything for about two hours.
We took the case to the board of education and got copies of all of the board members notes, one of which enraged me then and now.
Scrawled in the margins of this members notes - random physiological and psychological phrases. "R.E.M?" for rapid eye movement, "no empathy", "slouching" etc.
Some armchair psychologist that thinks a kid in a high pressure situation, looking around at a board of nine people, is displaying sociopathic traits. That somehow my seating posture related to my character.
They expelled me, and it was ultimately overturned by the state. Still bothers me that people try to apply these dogshit cues to make real life major decisions.
"Vindictive" and "spiteful" were some other good ones. They'd convinced themselves I was doing it to get them or something. The truth is, I was a bored unstimulated kid and the only consideration they got, was how I could avoid them as much as possible. Absolutely zero interest in sticking it to them or making their lives more difficult.
I was brought in front of the board for expulsion after a litany of these types of things, and questioned about anything and everything for about two hours.
We took the case to the board of education and got copies of all of the board members notes, one of which enraged me then and now.
Scrawled in the margins of this members notes - random physiological and psychological phrases. "R.E.M?" for rapid eye movement, "no empathy", "slouching" etc.
Some armchair psychologist that thinks a kid in a high pressure situation, looking around at a board of nine people, is displaying sociopathic traits. That somehow my seating posture related to my character.
They expelled me, and it was ultimately overturned by the state. Still bothers me that people try to apply these dogshit cues to make real life major decisions.
"Vindictive" and "spiteful" were some other good ones. They'd convinced themselves I was doing it to get them or something. The truth is, I was a bored unstimulated kid and the only consideration they got, was how I could avoid them as much as possible. Absolutely zero interest in sticking it to them or making their lives more difficult.
This is an extreme case, but not an unusual one. People draw conclusions about people with very little information. They then carry on to believe that their conclusions have real weight, and are based in fact. It's part of why there were always be socially fluid types and con artists.
It's as if directly when they draw some random conclusion about someone, they stop thinking, stop evaluating that person any more.
And they go on believing forever that that weird first random idea they got, was right.
(I might be exaggerating a bit.)
And they go on believing forever that that weird first random idea they got, was right.
(I might be exaggerating a bit.)
I know this isn't quite your point, but I can't tell you how many jobs I've not been offered due to missing some trivia question and the interviewer deciding my fate based on that.
I have a lot of anxiety about getting my next job, due to this and other reasons. "But you're well-qualified," my friends will say. Yes, but interviewers are capricious and irrational.
It is pretty shitty of them to write those things about a kid, but they were asked to make a judgement. They weren't using these observations to figure out if you were lying, and when you say they thought you were "out to get them", you're actually playing into the same armchair psychology they were.
I don't mean to give you grief because I've been in similar situations. But I hope you've learned from it that people will hold you responsible for behaviors they observe, and not for your intentions behind them (e.g. acting sullen because you are actually terrified inside).
I don't mean to give you grief because I've been in similar situations. But I hope you've learned from it that people will hold you responsible for behaviors they observe, and not for your intentions behind them (e.g. acting sullen because you are actually terrified inside).
If they wrote that he was being vindictive and spiteful, then I don’t think it quite qualifies as armchair psychology on GP’s part
They were assessing character and yes, making a judgement on it, which was their role. I find it likely that OPs behavior came off as seeming vindictive and spiteful, even if not intended that way. They would have done better to observe specific behaviors (which they did fairly with "slouching"), but their intent was likely to judge character and fit for the school, based on the evidence in front of them.
Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way.
Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way.
> if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way
It sounds like you're presuming to know more about what happened there than you can. I fully expressed remorse, and explained how in hindsight I understand that what I was doing was disruptive, and that I wouldn't behave that way in the future, etc.
Their rubbish analysis was just that. Also, how is "slouching" a fair thing to observe in analysis? I sit with bad posture. I did then and I do now. It's completely irrelevant.
Oh, I should also point out that by this point I had been clinically diagnosed with ADD - which they expressed, and I'll have to paraphrase as it was about 13-14 years ago, was "made up" and that it couldn't possibly explain my behaviour.
It sounds like you're presuming to know more about what happened there than you can. I fully expressed remorse, and explained how in hindsight I understand that what I was doing was disruptive, and that I wouldn't behave that way in the future, etc.
Their rubbish analysis was just that. Also, how is "slouching" a fair thing to observe in analysis? I sit with bad posture. I did then and I do now. It's completely irrelevant.
Oh, I should also point out that by this point I had been clinically diagnosed with ADD - which they expressed, and I'll have to paraphrase as it was about 13-14 years ago, was "made up" and that it couldn't possibly explain my behaviour.
Yeah, I wasn't there and don't presume to know what actually happened. This will come off the wrong way, but I don't know another way to say it so... Feedback is a gift. Even if it's wrong, it is based on some kind of truth in someone's perception. Sometimes it's truly worthless, but I believe there's always something to learn from our fellow humans, even if they express their message in an utterly disgusting way.
Not saying it's easy, especially for a kid, but if you go in front of a panel like that, if you can demonstrate remorse and desire to change, it goes a long way.
This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. Especially so when the system and punishment is arbitrary and capricious rather than rooted in first principles. We should focus on outcomes and shared goals, not easily faked attitudes.
This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie. Especially so when the system and punishment is arbitrary and capricious rather than rooted in first principles. We should focus on outcomes and shared goals, not easily faked attitudes.
Why do you assume it's a lie? I'd say it's at worst uncorrelated to the truth. And, apart from whether you mean it or not, I believe there's value in learning how to tell people that you do. It's up to you then to decide whether you want to use that power to lie.
GP isn't saying it's a lie, they are saying it rewards liars. That's an important distinction.
> This only furthers the advantage of those most willing and able to lie.
The presence of the word "only" clearly makes an assumption that it is a lie.
The presence of the word "only" clearly makes an assumption that it is a lie.
I have the same issue! When anyone asks me about something I haven't done (or should have done and did), I feel like they won't believe me anyway and go into a over-defensive/explanatory mode, basically acting like a culprit.
How does that tend to end?
Usually not in my favor, especially if it's my word against somebody else's.
I wonder if there's a way to change how one thinks, to not assume that the other person won't trust what one says, and so avoid getting nervous / acting like a culprit
I wonder if thinking "I get paid anyway the same each month, what does it matter if they believe me or not" helps (unless one might get fired)
I wonder if thinking "I get paid anyway the same each month, what does it matter if they believe me or not" helps (unless one might get fired)
Yes, not giving a fuck is a good solution to many social anxieties.
Funny you mention this, Freud wrote a whole essay about how people how people who suffer neurotic disorders are in serious risk of being convincingly misinterpreted when being drilled under pressure in legal settings, and that legal officials need to rethink what they think true speech is, as a neurotic will indict themselves even if they're innocent
Luckily, there is this one reliable method for detecting a lie, checking whether what the suspect says is true.
That means making personal observations and/or consulting various witnesses and authorities.
Now convenience and reliability are issues. Also maybe intelligibility.
Now convenience and reliability are issues. Also maybe intelligibility.
How to tell if someone is lying: do they have something to gain by lying? Are they a politician? Are they a celebrity? Do they have a history of lying?
The more yes answers to the above, the more likely the person is lying to you.
The more yes answers to the above, the more likely the person is lying to you.
I think that might be the only way.
Unless the suspect was misinformed or misunderstood some questions / interpreted differently
None of those things are lying, tho.
There's no difference to an observer. If you tell me you saw a white car in a parking lot and video footage shows a blue car, there's no way to know if you were lying or mistaken/misremembering.
Saying something that is false and lying are not the same thing.
True, but knowingly saying something false is always lying.
I wonder if this would unsettle innocent people as well. Sounds like this would unsettle some non-suspects too
You are operating on the principle that finding the truth is the purpose of an interrogation. This belief may be false.
I'd also recommend watching this quite famous talk about the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Well worth the time.
EDIT: Seems I wasn't the first to make that recommendation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26608636 ;)
Well worth the time.
EDIT: Seems I wasn't the first to make that recommendation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26608636 ;)
It’s not. The purpose of interrogation is for the officer to gather evidence pointing to your guilt which will be presented at trial.
The trial is about figuring out the truth.
The trial is about figuring out the truth.
> The trial is about figuring out the truth.
Even that is an assumption.
Even that is an assumption.
I'm thinking about trials more as tools for the people in the legal system to advance their careers (unfortunately. I don't work there)
Fair, but as a defendant the trial is pretty much your only chance to tell your side of the story to the people whose decision actually matters. Police officers and prosecutors don't decide whether you go to jail so there's never a point to trying to prove your innocence to them.
So how does one take this over to metaphorical poker? Because if the situation calls for having physical control over someone with the threat that they're about to go to jail, then okay, sure.
[deleted]
17 pantomimes...nuff said.
Is it? Is it really "nuff said"? Cuz I have no clue what you're talking about. From my perspective, a lot more needs to be said.
It was a joke, a reference to a Quentin Tarrantino movie where a character says there are 17 pantomimes that give a male liar away, but the character doesn't list them.
I'd like to see some hot-shot detective try to get a random number from 1-1000 out of my head by using those techniques.
Yeah, he couldn't.
Yeah, he couldn't.
You might want to watch this in full before gambling on that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
In summary, you lose the moment you agree to talk.
In summary, you lose the moment you agree to talk.
Thank you for posting - I found this video fascinating. Made me think about the law in the UK. Interestingly when arrested here we are told : “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
I’d be interested if anyone has experience of the UK system and if the same strategy of staying silent would be advised in the uk.
I’d be interested if anyone has experience of the UK system and if the same strategy of staying silent would be advised in the uk.
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I believe that the court may draw an inference from your silence. You are innocent and decided to remain silent only to have a perfect explanation that fits will all evidence known to the police weeks later. Why didn't you offer this earlier?
There is an interesting TV show called 24 Hours in Police Custody[1] that follows people in the 24 hours after they are arrested. Naturally, there are many scenes of police questioning. Plenty of people do just answer "No comment" to every question, even after consulting a solicitor.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_in_Police_Custody
There is an interesting TV show called 24 Hours in Police Custody[1] that follows people in the 24 hours after they are arrested. Naturally, there are many scenes of police questioning. Plenty of people do just answer "No comment" to every question, even after consulting a solicitor.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_in_Police_Custody
"Plenty of people do just answer "No comment" to every question, even after consulting a solicitor."
precisely because that's the best advice that you will get from a solicitor in the circumstances!
I rather belaboured my earlier responses to this same question, because I wanted to make it understood how rarely there's any justification to arrest someone. UK LEO arrest people by default and they absolutely do not have a automatic right to arrest anyone and certainly not only to bring you in to interview.
precisely because that's the best advice that you will get from a solicitor in the circumstances!
I rather belaboured my earlier responses to this same question, because I wanted to make it understood how rarely there's any justification to arrest someone. UK LEO arrest people by default and they absolutely do not have a automatic right to arrest anyone and certainly not only to bring you in to interview.
If they ask you why you didn't offer this earlier, you send them a link to this video. But in all honesty, I think it's of course very different when it's a PR situation vs a court situation. If you are asked about what just happened by press, "no comment" or "wanting to plead the fifth" might instantly make you enemy of the public even if you are innocent and want to be strategic about it.
"Under advisement of my lawyer I respectfully decline to comment"
> I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I believe that the court may draw an inference from your silence. You are innocent and decided to remain silent only to have a perfect explanation that fits will all evidence known to the police weeks later. Why didn't you offer this earlier?
this is my understanding of the UK system too (note: I am an american). it's quite different in the US because, among other things, the jury is explicitly instructed not infer anything from the defendant's use of their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. even if you have a perfect explanation for what happened, it's often best to just be quiet and let the prosecution fall apart.
this is my understanding of the UK system too (note: I am an american). it's quite different in the US because, among other things, the jury is explicitly instructed not infer anything from the defendant's use of their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. even if you have a perfect explanation for what happened, it's often best to just be quiet and let the prosecution fall apart.
The negative inference comes from the fact that you can't push an affirmative defence at trial that you haven't hinted at during questioning.
So, if you are arrested for beating up X, and you invoke your right to silence, THEN at trial you put forward a defence of "I wasn't there!" without any substantive evidence to back it up, the prosecutor can say "well, look, if there was an alibi, why didn't you tell the police about it?" The judge is supposed to then instruct the jury that they can draw an inference as to your honesty on the grounds you didn't bring it up during police interview.
The legislation that brings that into force are ss34-39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossh...
So, if you are arrested for beating up X, and you invoke your right to silence, THEN at trial you put forward a defence of "I wasn't there!" without any substantive evidence to back it up, the prosecutor can say "well, look, if there was an alibi, why didn't you tell the police about it?" The judge is supposed to then instruct the jury that they can draw an inference as to your honesty on the grounds you didn't bring it up during police interview.
The legislation that brings that into force are ss34-39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossh...
"The negative inference comes from the fact that you can't push an affirmative defence at trial that you haven't hinted at during questioning."
absolute nonsense
the statute with the meaning that you are trying to whitewash your argument applies only to application for dismissal of the indictment based on a claim it's reasonable for you to have provided earlier thereby preventing the proceedings progressing to court
absolute nonsense
the statute with the meaning that you are trying to whitewash your argument applies only to application for dismissal of the indictment based on a claim it's reasonable for you to have provided earlier thereby preventing the proceedings progressing to court
I'd also be interested to hear the advice, particularly as the Police seem to have a number of situations where you must give them varying amounts of information, and could be committing an offence if you don't, and other situations where you can say "no comment" to everything including name and address even when arrested. It's really confusing.
For example, the police can get you to show your documents, name, address if they think you are not a UK citizen. Another example: in a stop and search you must tell the police what they might find during a search.
i.e. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/sto...
For example, the police can get you to show your documents, name, address if they think you are not a UK citizen. Another example: in a stop and search you must tell the police what they might find during a search.
i.e. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/sto...
if you are stopped lawfully the law does require you to identify yourself if asked, generally.
this requirement you linked to also provide your address I'd have to look at further to tell you categorically that providing your ad is specifically in connection with this stature, but when you are asked to identify yourself providing a address is quite normal, but I am surprised that I actually don't know if you have to give your address with your name by law or if your name is always sufficient for all other cases. it is equally likely that I'm trying to clarify ambiguity that arises only from the language of the linked information of course
this requirement you linked to also provide your address I'd have to look at further to tell you categorically that providing your ad is specifically in connection with this stature, but when you are asked to identify yourself providing a address is quite normal, but I am surprised that I actually don't know if you have to give your address with your name by law or if your name is always sufficient for all other cases. it is equally likely that I'm trying to clarify ambiguity that arises only from the language of the linked information of course
Refusing to cooperate or exercising one's right to silence is absolutely NOT the best strategy in the UK. Whether you should or not will depend heavily on a variety of factors. If you plan to offer an affirmative defence at trial, you can't just spring it on prosecutors.
In addition, England (dunno about Scotland) does NOT have the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine regarding illegally or improperly collected evidence as is seen in a lot of US legal dramas.
The best strategy if arrested in England is to seek legal advice, either from your own solicitor or from the duty solicitor.
In addition, England (dunno about Scotland) does NOT have the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine regarding illegally or improperly collected evidence as is seen in a lot of US legal dramas.
The best strategy if arrested in England is to seek legal advice, either from your own solicitor or from the duty solicitor.
I waited overnight before checking that this still needs a contrary opinion just for the way you phrased your advice, which seems to impart greater and hidden argument to always cooperate with UK LEO.
a court "may" infer from your silence a negative presumption...
so goes the doctrine
"may"
"may"
"may" conduct a mis-trial if they do.
the UK police have very few powers in reality.
you may not be coerced to provide a statement or submit to a interview.
you can be arrested for justified suspicion and required to attend a police interview.
you are not required to respond in any way
you can elect to provide a prepared written statement instead, which must be construed by a court to have answered and not been un-cooperative. It is a good idea to prepare this prior to your interview and amend if you wish afterwards.
Handing over a statement won't excuse you from a formal interview when under arrest.
But a advance statement can enable your attorney to challenge the grounds for your arrest and detention.
the UK has very strict controls governing arrest for investigation purposes.
arrest is in fact prohibited unless the arrest is required for your attendance or protection of evidence.
the justifying facts can be challenged at any time. A good attorney will pay close attention to the detail of your interview questions and your attorney and you both have the right at any time to stop the interview and seek advice and counsel in private including from additional specialist lawyers. no time limit applies to the time out you call, although it may not count for the maximum limit of time you can be detained without judiciary approval
this being hn I'm g to assume that you have some recourse to the agency of trusted friends and financial resources.
specifically if you have such resources, I cannot recommend enough for you to make your solicitor instruct a reputable criminal barrister the moment you find out what's going on. cooperation with interview obviously helps you learn something helpful and if it doesn't you absolutely should be alarmed and proceed as follows :
you require your counsel to immediately obtain your warrant and any advance information available from the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to advise you on the possibility that your arrest is prejudicial because of a preexisting theory of your guilt.
bogus arguments for your arrest will never be fully compiled for reference and the possibility of embarrassing you calling you at work surely applies to most of us and all who we know.
unless you are unlikely to attend interview on request and unless you are provably likely to destroy evidence or interfere with witnesses YOU SHOULD NEVER BE ARRESTED AT ALL
the fact that potential witnesses won't be disclosed to you normally before interview is why you need to find out what you can as well as decisively excercise your right to counsel the moment you understand more regardless if it's two minutes into a interview everyone took all day to arrange.
as soon as the police can be said to not be forthcoming with witnesses you supposedly will meddle with, presuming you are not vagrant, the game is over for keeping you under arrest
now for 24 hours the duty custody sergeant must authorise your detention at intervals usually connected with the fact that the sergeants job is to oversee the correctness of proceedings and the provision of the rationale to go arrest you and slam you in a cell.
UK police sergeants are good stuff and I say that notwithstanding the contrary is true for too many officers in UK LEO - sergeants are on a different career path and don't like nonsense. they're also much older and more experienced folk. you'll be stood in front of yours at various times when you get your phone call and when you are called to interview and if the station isn't busy you can usually question them directly about your detention. officers have played endless games and detectives likewise - that's the business of it. UK LEO is in a woeful state but your Sarge is the sanest voice of reason you'll hear through your experience and including your attorneys because they're playing another game as well and one which I think has caused a lot of transgressions by officers to take place in the knowledge that you have to be seriously lucky to get a good station attorney attending on you and blessed by the Lord to receive someone who is going to be on point for you if you are arrested in the UK today.
I stress these points : Sarge Good : your attending attorney : suspect.
although anyone who cares will obtain a lot of details very quickly convening your situation, your reality created by silence and concurrent reticence on the part of the police, during the first stages, gives nothing whatsoever for anyone who can do anything for you to go on.
if you are brought before a judge the next morning (Saturday courts do operate and >24hr detention isn't allowed unless you are charged of a offence, IF CPS FAIL TO BRING TO YOUR FIRST HEARING ANY EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF DISPROOF OF THEIR CHARGES FROM THAT MOMENT THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ARE ONLY A ABUSE OF PROCESS AND UNLAWFUL AND THE DISCOVERY OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE LATER ON IN PROCEEDINGS IS IRRELEVANT. I have forgotten the case you'll find it in Blackstone Criminal Practice (the 2 volume reference for barristers to apply proceedings in criminal law - nota very bene because the other volume covers civil law few firms have copies of this vital reference work.
[0]
I'M WRONG YOU CAN purchase Blackstones Criminal Practice individually and for only £350 which is much cheaper than the 2012 set including the companion civil practice volume, which cost me a thousand pounds together.
GET a copy!
I'm crazy huh?
just get your copy and start reading it from a random page : I will take bets (friendly, I'd feel bad for taking from you too easy) that you will be astonished to learn that the foundations and assumptions that you have accumulated inadvertently over the years are simply utterly rotten and dangerous nonsense, within the hour.
(you'll find the critical case law I refer to if you look at the maximum detention of a accused person and regardless I'm going to find a place where this can be found, myself, but it is also in the Judicial Review Handbook (Fordham / Hart Publ. £202) and was given in 1951 meaning that you can pick up used copies of these references for a very modest price which is easy to recoup - at least firm demand always existed however the reduction in price by almost twenty percent for BCP makes me think someone's finally scanned all the thousands of Bible weight oversize pages..
I've placed such emphasis on the value of reference texts because if you can prove to me that a solicitor attending a arrest or representing a first hearing, had any awareness of these vital rights I'm describing today, I shall gladly make it my genuine pleasure to gift you this year's editions as well as additional copies for the use of whomever you subsequently instruct to represent your abrogated rights and obtain for you n necessary redress. only condition to be the payment for as many more copies out of the costs ordered against or settled with your I learned former lawyers to offer the same again to the next soul who was effectively sacrificed by the incompetence of the only profession who by law not only can but must be paid for their work fully in advance at all times except for attending to arrests.
I must wrap up my points but I hope that I have made it abundantly clear ideally beyond the possibility for doubting the importance to us all in or visiting the UK, this fact that the rights we are supposed to enjoy are so rarely sought for anyone's benefit that I can fairly assert that in criminal prosecution in the UK, the rotting fishes head is this carelessness and ignorance right here.
[0] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/blackstones-criminal...
a court "may" infer from your silence a negative presumption...
so goes the doctrine
"may"
"may"
"may" conduct a mis-trial if they do.
the UK police have very few powers in reality.
you may not be coerced to provide a statement or submit to a interview.
you can be arrested for justified suspicion and required to attend a police interview.
you are not required to respond in any way
you can elect to provide a prepared written statement instead, which must be construed by a court to have answered and not been un-cooperative. It is a good idea to prepare this prior to your interview and amend if you wish afterwards.
Handing over a statement won't excuse you from a formal interview when under arrest.
But a advance statement can enable your attorney to challenge the grounds for your arrest and detention.
the UK has very strict controls governing arrest for investigation purposes.
arrest is in fact prohibited unless the arrest is required for your attendance or protection of evidence.
the justifying facts can be challenged at any time. A good attorney will pay close attention to the detail of your interview questions and your attorney and you both have the right at any time to stop the interview and seek advice and counsel in private including from additional specialist lawyers. no time limit applies to the time out you call, although it may not count for the maximum limit of time you can be detained without judiciary approval
this being hn I'm g to assume that you have some recourse to the agency of trusted friends and financial resources.
specifically if you have such resources, I cannot recommend enough for you to make your solicitor instruct a reputable criminal barrister the moment you find out what's going on. cooperation with interview obviously helps you learn something helpful and if it doesn't you absolutely should be alarmed and proceed as follows :
you require your counsel to immediately obtain your warrant and any advance information available from the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to advise you on the possibility that your arrest is prejudicial because of a preexisting theory of your guilt.
bogus arguments for your arrest will never be fully compiled for reference and the possibility of embarrassing you calling you at work surely applies to most of us and all who we know.
unless you are unlikely to attend interview on request and unless you are provably likely to destroy evidence or interfere with witnesses YOU SHOULD NEVER BE ARRESTED AT ALL
the fact that potential witnesses won't be disclosed to you normally before interview is why you need to find out what you can as well as decisively excercise your right to counsel the moment you understand more regardless if it's two minutes into a interview everyone took all day to arrange.
as soon as the police can be said to not be forthcoming with witnesses you supposedly will meddle with, presuming you are not vagrant, the game is over for keeping you under arrest
now for 24 hours the duty custody sergeant must authorise your detention at intervals usually connected with the fact that the sergeants job is to oversee the correctness of proceedings and the provision of the rationale to go arrest you and slam you in a cell.
UK police sergeants are good stuff and I say that notwithstanding the contrary is true for too many officers in UK LEO - sergeants are on a different career path and don't like nonsense. they're also much older and more experienced folk. you'll be stood in front of yours at various times when you get your phone call and when you are called to interview and if the station isn't busy you can usually question them directly about your detention. officers have played endless games and detectives likewise - that's the business of it. UK LEO is in a woeful state but your Sarge is the sanest voice of reason you'll hear through your experience and including your attorneys because they're playing another game as well and one which I think has caused a lot of transgressions by officers to take place in the knowledge that you have to be seriously lucky to get a good station attorney attending on you and blessed by the Lord to receive someone who is going to be on point for you if you are arrested in the UK today.
I stress these points : Sarge Good : your attending attorney : suspect.
although anyone who cares will obtain a lot of details very quickly convening your situation, your reality created by silence and concurrent reticence on the part of the police, during the first stages, gives nothing whatsoever for anyone who can do anything for you to go on.
if you are brought before a judge the next morning (Saturday courts do operate and >24hr detention isn't allowed unless you are charged of a offence, IF CPS FAIL TO BRING TO YOUR FIRST HEARING ANY EVIDENCE CAPABLE OF DISPROOF OF THEIR CHARGES FROM THAT MOMENT THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ARE ONLY A ABUSE OF PROCESS AND UNLAWFUL AND THE DISCOVERY OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE LATER ON IN PROCEEDINGS IS IRRELEVANT. I have forgotten the case you'll find it in Blackstone Criminal Practice (the 2 volume reference for barristers to apply proceedings in criminal law - nota very bene because the other volume covers civil law few firms have copies of this vital reference work.
[0]
I'M WRONG YOU CAN purchase Blackstones Criminal Practice individually and for only £350 which is much cheaper than the 2012 set including the companion civil practice volume, which cost me a thousand pounds together.
GET a copy!
I'm crazy huh?
just get your copy and start reading it from a random page : I will take bets (friendly, I'd feel bad for taking from you too easy) that you will be astonished to learn that the foundations and assumptions that you have accumulated inadvertently over the years are simply utterly rotten and dangerous nonsense, within the hour.
(you'll find the critical case law I refer to if you look at the maximum detention of a accused person and regardless I'm going to find a place where this can be found, myself, but it is also in the Judicial Review Handbook (Fordham / Hart Publ. £202) and was given in 1951 meaning that you can pick up used copies of these references for a very modest price which is easy to recoup - at least firm demand always existed however the reduction in price by almost twenty percent for BCP makes me think someone's finally scanned all the thousands of Bible weight oversize pages..
I've placed such emphasis on the value of reference texts because if you can prove to me that a solicitor attending a arrest or representing a first hearing, had any awareness of these vital rights I'm describing today, I shall gladly make it my genuine pleasure to gift you this year's editions as well as additional copies for the use of whomever you subsequently instruct to represent your abrogated rights and obtain for you n necessary redress. only condition to be the payment for as many more copies out of the costs ordered against or settled with your I learned former lawyers to offer the same again to the next soul who was effectively sacrificed by the incompetence of the only profession who by law not only can but must be paid for their work fully in advance at all times except for attending to arrests.
I must wrap up my points but I hope that I have made it abundantly clear ideally beyond the possibility for doubting the importance to us all in or visiting the UK, this fact that the rights we are supposed to enjoy are so rarely sought for anyone's benefit that I can fairly assert that in criminal prosecution in the UK, the rotting fishes head is this carelessness and ignorance right here.
[0] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/blackstones-criminal...
you know I could have answered from personal experience and toll you that I have absolutely no reason to believe that silence causes anyone any harm whatsoever nor will silence be construed to your detriment by any court and my experience with this includes courts in which I believed I was going to get nothing except for a prejudicial hammering on all points
but I haven't even ever heard anything said in any court about the accused giving a no comment interview. never.
I probably shouldn't have gone to such length as I did earlier only to respond to your questions, either, but the reason why I replied at length is because it is so important for people to learn how much everything is biased against the individual member of the public in every way beginning with our popular understanding of the applicable laws and logic.
the warning that you quoted, the UK Miranda equivalent warning, people somehow always seem to think applies to subsequent procedure in particular the interview process.
if you are arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, the first thing you should do is to establish whether you should have been arrested in the first place and prior to letting anything else further happen to you.
obviously this is a little difficult when you are in custody.
police station solicitors even for large firms are a neglected and weary bunch totally disconnected from the rest of everything that is going to happen to you. right here is the worst disconnect of incentives imaginable because the actions of a smart lawyer in the earliest stages of every proceedings can have disproportionate and incredibly serious consequences.
I wrote to tell anyone who is in such a position where possible to get a barrister specialist in police law to consult with as soon as you have gained any understanding of the situation at all.
this will not make your solicitor happy. but a solicitor who refuses the instructions of their client in the UK commits a crime and your life is not a joke but the kind of service for anyone in this situation who hasn't prepared or already gotten good connections, sure makes you think someone's laughing at your rights.
it should be obvious that you want to stop the police before they think that spending time and resources on finding evidence to incriminate you is a good idea. But it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that this is when you can do this and about your only chance very likely.
I think the majority of arrests are actually unlawful in the UK, because it has been standard procedure for all of my lifetime and the knowledge of anyone older than me I've asked, to automatically go arrest the person of interest and bring them in to custody as if that's their perfect God given birthright. Well heck it is not!
I only hope by my admittedly rather long comments that somebody who has to go through things like this can possibly experience UK LEO without a bunch of unnecessary fears and emotions and prejudicial ideas in their heads that are altogether doing nothing except work against the individual freedoms and rights which we still mercifully but effectively tragically don't in effect often really have.
but I haven't even ever heard anything said in any court about the accused giving a no comment interview. never.
I probably shouldn't have gone to such length as I did earlier only to respond to your questions, either, but the reason why I replied at length is because it is so important for people to learn how much everything is biased against the individual member of the public in every way beginning with our popular understanding of the applicable laws and logic.
the warning that you quoted, the UK Miranda equivalent warning, people somehow always seem to think applies to subsequent procedure in particular the interview process.
if you are arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, the first thing you should do is to establish whether you should have been arrested in the first place and prior to letting anything else further happen to you.
obviously this is a little difficult when you are in custody.
police station solicitors even for large firms are a neglected and weary bunch totally disconnected from the rest of everything that is going to happen to you. right here is the worst disconnect of incentives imaginable because the actions of a smart lawyer in the earliest stages of every proceedings can have disproportionate and incredibly serious consequences.
I wrote to tell anyone who is in such a position where possible to get a barrister specialist in police law to consult with as soon as you have gained any understanding of the situation at all.
this will not make your solicitor happy. but a solicitor who refuses the instructions of their client in the UK commits a crime and your life is not a joke but the kind of service for anyone in this situation who hasn't prepared or already gotten good connections, sure makes you think someone's laughing at your rights.
it should be obvious that you want to stop the police before they think that spending time and resources on finding evidence to incriminate you is a good idea. But it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that this is when you can do this and about your only chance very likely.
I think the majority of arrests are actually unlawful in the UK, because it has been standard procedure for all of my lifetime and the knowledge of anyone older than me I've asked, to automatically go arrest the person of interest and bring them in to custody as if that's their perfect God given birthright. Well heck it is not!
I only hope by my admittedly rather long comments that somebody who has to go through things like this can possibly experience UK LEO without a bunch of unnecessary fears and emotions and prejudicial ideas in their heads that are altogether doing nothing except work against the individual freedoms and rights which we still mercifully but effectively tragically don't in effect often really have.
I had few issues with that video while it was extremely entertaining and captivating. Yes, there are innocent people getting a guilty verdict. But the actual question is, statistically how often? It's easy to cherrypick few examples, because law of large numbers means that if there's 0.0001% chance of getting wrongfully prosecuted if you talk as an innocent person, there's bound to be some famous examples.
But maybe in 99.99% cases speaking the truth and co-operating quickly will spare you many months of stress and time.
All I'm saying is, that from the video alone it is not clear to me what the risk/reward here is and of course it is situation dependant.
But maybe in 99.99% cases speaking the truth and co-operating quickly will spare you many months of stress and time.
All I'm saying is, that from the video alone it is not clear to me what the risk/reward here is and of course it is situation dependant.
He talks about this at ~9 minutes. Even if you said something good for your case, it won't be heard in court because its hearsay. And if you're in a spot when the police wants to interview you, the decision for your arrest was already made; you can only make the situation worse.
>when the police wants to interview you, the decision for your arrest was already made;
That's not true. The police will interview everyone connected to a crime. Like if your SO turns up dead you're going to be one of the first people the police talk to. Depending on what else they've found they will have varying levels of suspicion. That level will absolutely change on how you do in that interview or if you refuse to talk.
That's not true. The police will interview everyone connected to a crime. Like if your SO turns up dead you're going to be one of the first people the police talk to. Depending on what else they've found they will have varying levels of suspicion. That level will absolutely change on how you do in that interview or if you refuse to talk.
Fine, but the police level of suspicion is not relevant.
Never, ever agree to be interviewed by police without your attorney. There is no reason not to have someone who knows the game play for you. You have no clue what the police know or think they know already and your innocuous answer about something that seems unrelated may seem to confirm some wrong information they already have.
Again, your word cannot exonerate you but it can absolutely get you charged or even convicted.
Never, ever agree to be interviewed by police without your attorney. There is no reason not to have someone who knows the game play for you. You have no clue what the police know or think they know already and your innocuous answer about something that seems unrelated may seem to confirm some wrong information they already have.
Again, your word cannot exonerate you but it can absolutely get you charged or even convicted.
>Fine, but the police level of suspicion is not relevant.
Of course it is. The police aren't the sole decision maker in the process, but as a rule if they don't think you did it you won't get arrested. Conversely if they think they can prove you did it you probably will end up getting arrested.
>Again, your word cannot exonerate you but it can absolutely get you charged or even convicted.
Sure it can. Juries and the police are fallible and can be swayed by a convincing performance. Jeffrey Dahmer, as an infamous example, managed to get the police to return one of his drugged victims by convincing them he was drunk and it was a lovers quarrel.
Of course it is. The police aren't the sole decision maker in the process, but as a rule if they don't think you did it you won't get arrested. Conversely if they think they can prove you did it you probably will end up getting arrested.
>Again, your word cannot exonerate you but it can absolutely get you charged or even convicted.
Sure it can. Juries and the police are fallible and can be swayed by a convincing performance. Jeffrey Dahmer, as an infamous example, managed to get the police to return one of his drugged victims by convincing them he was drunk and it was a lovers quarrel.
Extremely wrong. If you don’t agree to speak with police you will always have an opportunity to clear your name in the future, through an attorney who knows the game either before or during court. Every shred of information you share with them is ammunition and, again, you have no clue how they will use it, what it may appear to confirm or even what crimes they are actually investigating.
Every assertion you make to police opens you up to being prosecuted for completely separate crimes, including lying to the police, depending on what other information they already have (correct or incorrect).
Take the advice that every cop, every attorney takes and also gives to their kids: don’t talk to the police. Just get an attorney.
(A wild scenario of police catching someone in the act of a crime is not only not what we are talking about, but that individual was not exonerated.)
Every assertion you make to police opens you up to being prosecuted for completely separate crimes, including lying to the police, depending on what other information they already have (correct or incorrect).
Take the advice that every cop, every attorney takes and also gives to their kids: don’t talk to the police. Just get an attorney.
(A wild scenario of police catching someone in the act of a crime is not only not what we are talking about, but that individual was not exonerated.)
if there's enough evidence to justify an arrest, you're not going to talk your way out of it. even if you're innocent, it's much more likely you say something that makes the officer decide to arrest you.
I knew it was going to be that video before I even clicked the link. I agree completely.
[deleted]
That's actually easy:the number is 50. Answer:no it isn't. Reply: he lied, get him boys we have the number.
That is because the stakes are too low to make you feel unsettled (in getting a random number).
But if you knew you did something that could land you in prison and you were supposed to hide it, that would be a completely different scenario.
But if you knew you did something that could land you in prison and you were supposed to hide it, that would be a completely different scenario.
The article linked explicitly cites a study that disproves that assumption. People cannot tell liars apart better than chance even when watching videos of murderers' interrogations.
Scenarios in the article may be cherry picked and videos are not the same as being in the same situation in real life. Also in article they didn't have a chance to provoke subject into verbal contradictions as they were only looking at visual cues.
Even in the article they mentioned 85% success rate after some training.
Even in the article they mentioned 85% success rate after some training.
I don't quite understand what point you're making. The article explicitly says that "spotting" a liar, that is detecting lies based on non-verbal clues does not work. However, other interrogation techniques, such as getting the subject to talk more freely to give them chance to make contradictive statements does work. That's what the 85% rate is about, don't use nonverbal cues, use verbal techniques.
I bet even if the stakes were "if I find out the number, you go to prison for one year" he wouldn't be able to.
My point was not that detectives are useless, interrogation does work wonders -- in some cases making the criminal confess, in others making the innocent confess to something he did not do.
My point was getting convicted based on some lie detection bullshit or just some confession alone is evil.
My point was not that detectives are useless, interrogation does work wonders -- in some cases making the criminal confess, in others making the innocent confess to something he did not do.
My point was getting convicted based on some lie detection bullshit or just some confession alone is evil.
People go to jail for things they didn't do all the time, by the time you see those signs on the wall you better be nervous. Unless you like jail.
"As a Homeland Security official told congressional investigators, “common sense” behavioral indicators are worth including in a “rational and defensible security program” even if they don’t meet academic standards of scientific evidence."
What does that even mean? ... like there is a separate standard of evidence and there is a "we can get by without evidence" standard of evidence?
What does that even mean? ... like there is a separate standard of evidence and there is a "we can get by without evidence" standard of evidence?
It's pretty obvious that there are useful truths that don't yet meet rigorous scientific standards of evidence. Like masks being useful in a pandemic or parachutes working. Non-serious "randomised trials" have been done with parachutes, and found no measurable effect - because for safety reasons the participants only jumped from an altitude of 2 metres or something.
In sports medicine there are loads of things where the anecdotal evidence is fairly strong and yet there is no rigorous evidence in favour of something. Like foam rolling, or running on your toes instead of your heels. Sometimes these things are hard to study, or simply haven't been studied yet. In those cases it's OK to fall back on anecdotal evidence, particularly when you don't have reason to believe the evidence is biased (like it would be if someone was trying to sell you a product or an ideology). Some of these things I'm sure will turn out to not be real results, if and when "proper" science gets around to studying them. But in the meantime the anecdotal, uncodified folk knowledge is better than useless.
When folk knowledge is "debunked" by science I sometimes still don't rule out that it might be true, because so much science is simply of too poor quality to be able to properly make any such conclusion. See the replication crisis.
I'm a scientist with nothing but respect for the scientific method itself, but "has this been scientifically proven" can be a really weak way to determine what's true and what's not in many cases. In those cases you kind of have to do your own reasoning with the data you have, anecdotal or otherwise, and try to get closest to the truth that you can. Which I think can be a valuable process in practice that shouldn't be discarded merely because it's not "proper" science.
Scientists are also flawed and sometimes publish results in a biased way to conform to an ideology. For example, I expect folk beliefs about gender differences to be somewhat accurate (not perfect), and for the official science to be hopelessly muddled.
In sports medicine there are loads of things where the anecdotal evidence is fairly strong and yet there is no rigorous evidence in favour of something. Like foam rolling, or running on your toes instead of your heels. Sometimes these things are hard to study, or simply haven't been studied yet. In those cases it's OK to fall back on anecdotal evidence, particularly when you don't have reason to believe the evidence is biased (like it would be if someone was trying to sell you a product or an ideology). Some of these things I'm sure will turn out to not be real results, if and when "proper" science gets around to studying them. But in the meantime the anecdotal, uncodified folk knowledge is better than useless.
When folk knowledge is "debunked" by science I sometimes still don't rule out that it might be true, because so much science is simply of too poor quality to be able to properly make any such conclusion. See the replication crisis.
I'm a scientist with nothing but respect for the scientific method itself, but "has this been scientifically proven" can be a really weak way to determine what's true and what's not in many cases. In those cases you kind of have to do your own reasoning with the data you have, anecdotal or otherwise, and try to get closest to the truth that you can. Which I think can be a valuable process in practice that shouldn't be discarded merely because it's not "proper" science.
Scientists are also flawed and sometimes publish results in a biased way to conform to an ideology. For example, I expect folk beliefs about gender differences to be somewhat accurate (not perfect), and for the official science to be hopelessly muddled.
Your examples of parachutes and masks are not examples of useful truths that don’t meet standards of scientific evidence. They are examples of useful truths that have not been tested through double blind randomized control experiments.
But they both have scientific evidence behind them, and by any reasonable definition of meeting standards of scientific evidence, they do. The efficacy of parachutes can be derived from first principles. We know parachutes slow descent. And we know the risk of injury and death caused by force of impact. We can calculate how much a parachute slows descent snd therefore reduces force of impact snd prevents death.
The benefits of wearing masks in reducing the spread of COVID and serious disease through COVID can similarly be derived from first principles but more importantly, there are many comparative population studies that meet the standard of scientific evidence.
But they both have scientific evidence behind them, and by any reasonable definition of meeting standards of scientific evidence, they do. The efficacy of parachutes can be derived from first principles. We know parachutes slow descent. And we know the risk of injury and death caused by force of impact. We can calculate how much a parachute slows descent snd therefore reduces force of impact snd prevents death.
The benefits of wearing masks in reducing the spread of COVID and serious disease through COVID can similarly be derived from first principles but more importantly, there are many comparative population studies that meet the standard of scientific evidence.
Deriving from first principles is not the only way parachutes, masks can be proved to be effective.
We don't need humans to be attached to parachutes, to test that parachutes work.
There is various research on masks effectiveness too.
We don't need humans to be attached to parachutes, to test that parachutes work.
There is various research on masks effectiveness too.
Sure, but in a legal regulatory context, "scientific evidence" means different things than your "reasonable definition".
It is a too charitable interpretation. Another interpretation of not requiring hard evidence is to imprison somebody just because police thinks that they look guilty.
Scientists are flawed. There is a replication crisis in soft science fields. Still scientific method is still a mile above anything else out there.
Scientists are flawed. There is a replication crisis in soft science fields. Still scientific method is still a mile above anything else out there.
"randomised trials" is not the gold standard of scientific evidence it just one method and there are a lots of other methods. It's used in medicine because we have a very weak understanding of what's going on and it's the only method that permit us to progress in this situation : It permit us to get some useful results without having a working model of the situation.
> Like foam rolling, or running on your toes instead of your heels.
These things have been studied numerous times. Head over to r/AdvancedFitness or r/AdvancedRunning and you'll find people seriously disseminating acacemic, peer-reviewed research on precisely these topics.
It can take a while for certain things to go from practitioner consensus to academic consensus. But that doesn't mean academics aren't rigorously studying it. I also have doubts about your mask and parachute examples.
These things have been studied numerous times. Head over to r/AdvancedFitness or r/AdvancedRunning and you'll find people seriously disseminating acacemic, peer-reviewed research on precisely these topics.
It can take a while for certain things to go from practitioner consensus to academic consensus. But that doesn't mean academics aren't rigorously studying it. I also have doubts about your mask and parachute examples.
How do masks not meet the scientific standard of efficacy? I understand you're not making an anti-mask argument, but I'm just genuinely curious to understand why you say this. Besides the obvious benefit of masks mitigating the spray of viral aerosol, as far as I am aware, masks have a lot of scientific support for their efficacy.
Not OP, but the primary studies saying masks are effective are basically experiments of function, such as, does a mask block particles more than not wearing a mask? However, studies on their effectiveness in the past have never found actual protection from diseases. For example if every one covers their mouth were they sneeze anyways, then what is a mask really doing? Do people touch their face more often with masks, reuse masks, and actually bring more particles to their face? Diseases are not all airborn and live on surfaces, so is all this interaction with your face to large untrained groups actually increasing the risks? The best we have now is comparing groups of people or states with different policies, which is also not proving masks are effective, but could that cause be due to people still following rules even though the policy isn’t forced or some other unknown reason such as hers immunity being reached, etc.
Or so much of science is filled with jargon that a regular person isn't going to bother understanding. This is why I never call BS on folk stories and such. Even with every story there is a grain of truth to it. Regardless of how much BS.
In the field of psychology and trying to determine what's going on in some particular person's mind, "common sense" doesn't really work, even if it may sometimes work in more objective scientific fields.
Here is the paper about parachute in your example: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5343
To be fair, the last wave suggests that wearing masks has no effect in this pandemic[0][1]. Comparing Sweden and Germany (which have at least similar health systems and count similarly) the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is about the same, where Swedes rarely wear any masks and in Germany it is mandatory indoors (accessible to the public) and even mandatory in some zones outdoors.
Also when you think about it, the permanent mask usage has some serious hygienic downsides.
1. You need to touch your face way more often (reseat+put on/off)
2. Most masks still allow viri to go through (especially on the sides)
3. Masks are often reused and used for too long (correct usage would need either a lot of money+time or hundreds of masks/month)
The positive effects of masks in this pandemic are pretty debatable especially given the "circumstantial" evidence.
[0]: https://imgur.com/a/MNlOoTN
[1]: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/blob/master/public/dat...
Also when you think about it, the permanent mask usage has some serious hygienic downsides.
1. You need to touch your face way more often (reseat+put on/off)
2. Most masks still allow viri to go through (especially on the sides)
3. Masks are often reused and used for too long (correct usage would need either a lot of money+time or hundreds of masks/month)
The positive effects of masks in this pandemic are pretty debatable especially given the "circumstantial" evidence.
[0]: https://imgur.com/a/MNlOoTN
[1]: https://github.com/owid/covid-19-data/blob/master/public/dat...
“Viri” is not the plural of “virus”. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-plural-of-virus-112199
Personally, being a compulsive perfectionist, I always use “virus” in English as a mass noun, and never pluralize it.
I thus say “several parts of virus” or “several programs of virus”, — an elegant solution, I would say.
And yes, I do say “octopodēs”; I am not some bourgeois peasant.
I thus say “several parts of virus” or “several programs of virus”, — an elegant solution, I would say.
And yes, I do say “octopodēs”; I am not some bourgeois peasant.
The guy I knew who used “scenarii” instead of “scenarios” would probably drive you up the wall :)
Indeed.
Such I stand atop such lesser men of lesser etymological knowledge, that I unironically præfer the spelling of “lim”, for the “b” is but a false etymology, an was never there.
I demand nothing less than perfection, and I shall receive it.
Such I stand atop such lesser men of lesser etymological knowledge, that I unironically præfer the spelling of “lim”, for the “b” is but a false etymology, an was never there.
I demand nothing less than perfection, and I shall receive it.
Bravo, this made my day. Kudos to you. :)
I'm impressed to see spring 2020 WHO mask denialism persist all way into this season.
Virtually all countries that stuck to mask regimen a year ago despite the misguided advice regurgulated here have the epidemic under control for a long long while.
Virtually all countries that stuck to mask regimen a year ago despite the misguided advice regurgulated here have the epidemic under control for a long long while.
I'm not impressed so much as dismayed. My theory is that it is warfare by decentralized means, worked through witting and unwitting subjects.
In other words, there are a bunch of people whose job it is to keep the enemies of their country in mask denialism and maximum COVID infection as deeply as possible, and it's primarily done through social media.
And while it's useful in a sense to put forth such intentions while knowingly coordinating bot networks and the like, it's social engineering that does the heavy lifting: the real effectiveness comes in ways you can't directly control, when people soak up the information around them and begin propagating your message (or weird mutations of it) on their own initiative, thinking they've invented it.
And that's how they getcha. So I'm not the slightest bit impressed or surprised to see spring 2020 memes persisting: they're being fed, on purpose, singlemindedly. I confess to being surprised when the same memes turned up in English in various EU countries, but when the job is to propagate the message, I guess English signs in foreign countries is all part of the game, indeed a normal part of anybody trying to send messages to the West.
In other words, there are a bunch of people whose job it is to keep the enemies of their country in mask denialism and maximum COVID infection as deeply as possible, and it's primarily done through social media.
And while it's useful in a sense to put forth such intentions while knowingly coordinating bot networks and the like, it's social engineering that does the heavy lifting: the real effectiveness comes in ways you can't directly control, when people soak up the information around them and begin propagating your message (or weird mutations of it) on their own initiative, thinking they've invented it.
And that's how they getcha. So I'm not the slightest bit impressed or surprised to see spring 2020 memes persisting: they're being fed, on purpose, singlemindedly. I confess to being surprised when the same memes turned up in English in various EU countries, but when the job is to propagate the message, I guess English signs in foreign countries is all part of the game, indeed a normal part of anybody trying to send messages to the West.
I’m both impressed and dismayed that both of your comments don’t do a single thing to refute mask denialism, specifically whatever his point is on Sweden and Germany.
I don’t even believe his comment, but I’m not going to sneer at it and call it mask denialism to shut it down. I feel better about his comment at least attempting to state an argument and evidence in support of it.
Anyway, this is a strange tangent for the OP.
I don’t even believe his comment, but I’m not going to sneer at it and call it mask denialism to shut it down. I feel better about his comment at least attempting to state an argument and evidence in support of it.
Anyway, this is a strange tangent for the OP.
Why not compare Sweden and Norway, in many ways a better comparison in culture, population density and geography than Sweden and Germany? …oh.
See, I didn't specifically went with countering the OP line of argument because refuting BS takes an order of magnitude more effort than slinging it. It's something anyone who did try to reason with generally unreasonable people so abundant lately can attest to. The laminated checklist from March 2020 above just gives that vibe of someone brining up their homework here and all reasoning is going to be futile.
See, I didn't specifically went with countering the OP line of argument because refuting BS takes an order of magnitude more effort than slinging it. It's something anyone who did try to reason with generally unreasonable people so abundant lately can attest to. The laminated checklist from March 2020 above just gives that vibe of someone brining up their homework here and all reasoning is going to be futile.
There's a thing called a Gish Gallop (all this is actually rather on topic for discussions of lying) where the counter to someone arguing your points, is to pivot and rapidly throw out more points, pretty much anything you like, too fast to properly refute. It's a rather effective tactic for socially disabling an argumentative opponent: just not for anything truth-related. Might not be truth-related but it's still very real.
All this relates to discussions of lying because the fundamental structure of the gallop, plus numerous other forms of BSing, requires the implication that everybody is in good faith: you're meant to grant that and then examine the arguments and see how they shake out. There's a lot of stuff happening in modern discourse where an anchor point to the argument is, 'since everyone here is in good faith and we just believe different things, let's break down the sides of the arguments'.
But we're not. When you're desperate enough about winning (or not losing important things), good faith is disposable, and then people lie, for advantage, because they badly need advantage and aren't getting it from truth and good faith.
Hence, the OP question of 'How can you tell if someone is lying?'. People will con themselves, but they will also lie on purpose to accomplish a goal.
All this relates to discussions of lying because the fundamental structure of the gallop, plus numerous other forms of BSing, requires the implication that everybody is in good faith: you're meant to grant that and then examine the arguments and see how they shake out. There's a lot of stuff happening in modern discourse where an anchor point to the argument is, 'since everyone here is in good faith and we just believe different things, let's break down the sides of the arguments'.
But we're not. When you're desperate enough about winning (or not losing important things), good faith is disposable, and then people lie, for advantage, because they badly need advantage and aren't getting it from truth and good faith.
Hence, the OP question of 'How can you tell if someone is lying?'. People will con themselves, but they will also lie on purpose to accomplish a goal.
Effectiveness of masks should be so easy to proof, but just isn't. It should be obvious to anyone when you're so desperate.
Btw Swedes live mostly in the south and in big cities (100k+). You didn't even check that.
Btw Swedes live mostly in the south and in big cities (100k+). You didn't even check that.
He was using the equivalent of a Facebook infographic to "prove" that epidemiologists are wrong.
His type believes that scientists are part of a cabal that is lying to the public for nefarious reasons.
I won't say that he himself is deranged, but his thought pattern on this issue is.
Anyhow, for those who believe in science: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
His type believes that scientists are part of a cabal that is lying to the public for nefarious reasons.
I won't say that he himself is deranged, but his thought pattern on this issue is.
Anyhow, for those who believe in science: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
My thought pattern is deranged, because I compare countries with similar state of health care. One where masks are mandatory and one where it isn't. Well, Sweden also has no lockdown, but it pretty much does not matter since the death count in countries should be way higher if most people do not wear masks even indoor.
While you were smearing me you missed to make an argument.
You apparently think that you can believe in science as some kind of religion, but that is not how any of this works. There is not single science answer for these kind of topics, so you can't avoid arguments. Try refute it! I wanna see it.
While you were smearing me you missed to make an argument.
You apparently think that you can believe in science as some kind of religion, but that is not how any of this works. There is not single science answer for these kind of topics, so you can't avoid arguments. Try refute it! I wanna see it.
There are actually a lot of reasons masks are not effective. Obviously they block particles but do they actually stop the spread of disease is the question, and the evidence there is extremely questionable. Besides the posters arguments and comparisons, there is the obvious question of why did we see this winter surge when all lockdowns and masks mandates were imposed and at their highest peak? If everyone is covering their mouth when they sneeze then or appropriately staying home when they get sick, would that be as effective as blocking particles, your hand or elbow is much better protection than masks as they are non permeable. Why is it that the supposed white right wing anti-maskers have the lowest death rate of any ethnicity? These are not easy questions to answer and I’m not saying they are all not able to be explained but the effectiveness of masks is very far from proven.
It can mean no one has done a study of a thing or existing studies are poor.
I don’t know if that’s what the official means, but all kinds of common sense things never end up being studied because they’re commonly believed to be true.
Edit: having read the article more closely, however, it sounds like the official may be referring to things scientists believe they have debunked.
I don’t know if that’s what the official means, but all kinds of common sense things never end up being studied because they’re commonly believed to be true.
Edit: having read the article more closely, however, it sounds like the official may be referring to things scientists believe they have debunked.
I can't be certain what they meant, but security agents and police will often find themselves in a situation where they need to decide how to devote investigative resources in situations where they have limited information. The information they do have might depend on their assessment of the veracity of what they are being told. In that case they may well have only their judgement to go on. I think that's reasonable, what else are they going to do?
What we need to be careful of is making judgements about innocence or guilt based on subjective opinion.
What we need to be careful of is making judgements about innocence or guilt based on subjective opinion.
It means it feels right, so they want it to be right. They will attempt to convince themselves AND you that this is the right choice.
Hence, it's a pretty easy tell that this person is lying to you.
Ironic.
Hence, it's a pretty easy tell that this person is lying to you.
Ironic.
Sounds like code for ‘profiling’ post 9/11, where it took very little due diligence to ship someone off to Guantanamo or pick someone out at an airport. Conjecture based on the department in question, DHS literally exists because of Islamic terrorists.
I’ll add that I think profiling is a necessary evil in tense situations, and terrible as a blanket policy (racial profiling en masse).
I’ll add that I think profiling is a necessary evil in tense situations, and terrible as a blanket policy (racial profiling en masse).
I recently got to spend some time with Jeff Deskovic (we met while he was on vacation), the exoneree mentioned at the top of the article for having spent 16 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. He is looking for folks with technical backgrounds to to consult with Deskovic.org which has helped exonerate 9 other wrong-fully convicted persons.
If anyone is interested, please contact me at the address in my HN profile!
If anyone is interested, please contact me at the address in my HN profile!
I can't recommend Talking to Strangers enough. We have a crippling inability of people to read strangers correctly. In addition to amazing testimony and evidence, great case studies, the production quality of the audiobook is like a good podcast.
I'll also recommend the actual talking to strangers meetups, though I assume they're on hold due to plague.
[deleted]
Can you give more info on that podcast? I'm finding a bunch with that name.
It's a book, by Malcolm Gladwell. The comment said the audiobook is like a good podcast.
If it's a book by Malcolm Gladwell, I can't anti-recommend it enough.
All of the Malcolm Gladwell books I've read have been tripe. Unless he has radically improved his writing and grasp of nuance in the last decade (and published retractions of his earlier books), his books are dangerous anti-knowledge which will make you feel smarter but actually be dumber.
Gladwell takes an obvious, folksy thing, adds a bit of a twist to it, presents several anecdotes as dramatic stories illustrating his point, then slaps on some "science" to make it seem like its true. It's not. He's just making stuff up that sounds plausible but surprising.
Gladwell writes well, and seems believable. That doesn't make him right.
All of the Malcolm Gladwell books I've read have been tripe. Unless he has radically improved his writing and grasp of nuance in the last decade (and published retractions of his earlier books), his books are dangerous anti-knowledge which will make you feel smarter but actually be dumber.
Gladwell takes an obvious, folksy thing, adds a bit of a twist to it, presents several anecdotes as dramatic stories illustrating his point, then slaps on some "science" to make it seem like its true. It's not. He's just making stuff up that sounds plausible but surprising.
Gladwell writes well, and seems believable. That doesn't make him right.
When studying sculpture a tutor talked to me about people making “things that look like art”, which really stuck with me - they made objects that mimicked what they thought art should be like, but had a kind of conceptual hollowness. I think Malcolm Gladwell is similar in that he produces content that has the appearance of science, but once you start digging it doesn’t hold up. A bit like a version of “truthiness”, except that in his case it’s “scienciness”.
"Scientism" is a pretty common term for this. I.e. superficially coating arguments in a veneer of rigor and data, for the sake of riding on the epistemic prestige of empirical science.
Sciensimilitude, as it were
Oh right, art elitism as counter example, great. Who gets to define what I see as art? "conceptual hollowness" - that sounds nothing but esoteric to begin with. Reminds me of the (German) "Hurz"... event (https://youtu.be/MJ7jbQJXF68).
I hate posting anything negative but sorry, this was just too much.
Oh and I admit I actually didn't dislike the third of one Gladwell's book I once read, as well as a presentation he gave somewhere about the Norden bombsight. Every single one of the HN haters of him on the other hand remain exceedingly vague and don't really have anything of substance to say, only very over-styled ways to express that they dislike them, or even the man himself.
I hate posting anything negative but sorry, this was just too much.
Oh and I admit I actually didn't dislike the third of one Gladwell's book I once read, as well as a presentation he gave somewhere about the Norden bombsight. Every single one of the HN haters of him on the other hand remain exceedingly vague and don't really have anything of substance to say, only very over-styled ways to express that they dislike them, or even the man himself.
"Remained exceedingly vague" isn't exactly fair. How much do you expect from a comment on a discussion board? If you want more specifics, ask for them! You're in attack mode here right out the gate.
He has admitted to "mak[ing] trouble" rather than believing everything he writes.[0] He acknowledges that his books are not "ends in themselves."[1] He cherry-picks supporting studies and leaves out their failure to replicate.[2] He throws around scientific terms but uses them incorrectly. [3] He offers ill-considered off-the-cuff "solutions."[3]
One reason HN comments might be "exceedingly vague" is because the specific criticisms have been laid out extensively over the past decade.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/29/malcolm-gladwe...
[1] https://www.thecrimson.com/column/behavioral-economist/artic...
[2] https://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/the_gladwellian_deb...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.htm...
He has admitted to "mak[ing] trouble" rather than believing everything he writes.[0] He acknowledges that his books are not "ends in themselves."[1] He cherry-picks supporting studies and leaves out their failure to replicate.[2] He throws around scientific terms but uses them incorrectly. [3] He offers ill-considered off-the-cuff "solutions."[3]
One reason HN comments might be "exceedingly vague" is because the specific criticisms have been laid out extensively over the past decade.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/29/malcolm-gladwe...
[1] https://www.thecrimson.com/column/behavioral-economist/artic...
[2] https://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/the_gladwellian_deb...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.htm...
Leave aside the art metaphor if that's not to your taste, and perhaps a less metaphorical way of looking at it is that Gladwell is a storyteller, not a scientist. He creates coherent narratives, but they obey the logic of stories, not science. Other people have written detailed criticisms of his scientific writing - if you want to read them they're pretty easy to find. I genuinely think it's worth your time.
I listened to his podcast history of napalm, and found it compelling and interesting (but then I'm not a historian, so perhaps it's Murray Gell-Mann amnesia!) So I have more time for his historical work, partially because history is a kind of storytelling.
Science is not the same as history, and needs to be judged by different metrics. This is where he falls down.
I listened to his podcast history of napalm, and found it compelling and interesting (but then I'm not a historian, so perhaps it's Murray Gell-Mann amnesia!) So I have more time for his historical work, partially because history is a kind of storytelling.
Science is not the same as history, and needs to be judged by different metrics. This is where he falls down.
Thank you for making my point. Your comment is as vague and nebulous as you say Gladwell's stories are. Neither does he claim to publish scientific papers, last time I checked those were "popular science" category books like millions of others. I'm not sure what value there is in singling out one guy, or to point out the gigantic discrepancy between a scientific paper and a popular book, especially when it's done worse than the latter and even farther from any rigor.
The vitriol, downvote-happiness and almost zealotry of "commenter movements" like anti-Javascript, or, here anti-Gladwell, to me signals that this is more a self-perpetuating fad driven by group think (trying to fit in and proof one is part of the core). If it was merely fact driven such as mine would be ignored - or not be given cause to exist in the first place. It's not like I care one iota about Gladwell, as I said, I never managed to read more than a small part of one book. What I did notice though and why I even paid any attention at all was the amazing level of effort - coupled with an equally amazing level of vagueness - some people put into this.
If one were to think logically, even if you conclude all of Gladwell's books are really really bad, you would just ignore the whole thing. That call to arms anytime anyone dares mention Gladwell - or Javascript - is scary and as far as I can see far worse than anything Gladwell may ever have written. It reminds me more of high school "cool kids" group dynamics.
The vitriol, downvote-happiness and almost zealotry of "commenter movements" like anti-Javascript, or, here anti-Gladwell, to me signals that this is more a self-perpetuating fad driven by group think (trying to fit in and proof one is part of the core). If it was merely fact driven such as mine would be ignored - or not be given cause to exist in the first place. It's not like I care one iota about Gladwell, as I said, I never managed to read more than a small part of one book. What I did notice though and why I even paid any attention at all was the amazing level of effort - coupled with an equally amazing level of vagueness - some people put into this.
If one were to think logically, even if you conclude all of Gladwell's books are really really bad, you would just ignore the whole thing. That call to arms anytime anyone dares mention Gladwell - or Javascript - is scary and as far as I can see far worse than anything Gladwell may ever have written. It reminds me more of high school "cool kids" group dynamics.
Your characterisation of my arguments is not fair. I specifically said I appreciated his historical podcast, so I'm certainly not a zealot. And to remove doubt, I'm not an artist critiquing science from a point of ignorance, I have a scientific background too, indluding a masters in neuroscience. Gladwell's mischaracterisations of science are widely distributed, and I think that's why he comes up so often - if he was a relatively unknown blogger nobody would care. It's frustrating to see this kind of scienciness get so much attention when the people who do the science he writes narratives about, and whose work he piggybacks on, are much more circumspect about how widely their work generalises.
Again, I have said there are multiple critiques which go into detail about what is wrong with Gladwell's writing, so if your problem is the "nebulousness" of a comment on Hacker News (which is no place for a detailed critiqe), then I suggest you look for them if you're genuinely interested in why people have a low opinion of his science writing.
Again, I have said there are multiple critiques which go into detail about what is wrong with Gladwell's writing, so if your problem is the "nebulousness" of a comment on Hacker News (which is no place for a detailed critiqe), then I suggest you look for them if you're genuinely interested in why people have a low opinion of his science writing.
Sorry to have scared you. I don't think pointing out the scientific illiteracy and anti-knowledge in his books is far worse than the books themselves, but YMMV.
I commented on a relevant thread in the hope of saving someone else the time wasted reading them, and if I'm honest, because I'm still salty about the money and time he stole from me.
I criticise it in the same wa as if someone was expounding homeopathy or a fruit-baswd diet for cancer, or horoscope-based hiring.
JavaScript is fine by me.
I commented on a relevant thread in the hope of saving someone else the time wasted reading them, and if I'm honest, because I'm still salty about the money and time he stole from me.
I criticise it in the same wa as if someone was expounding homeopathy or a fruit-baswd diet for cancer, or horoscope-based hiring.
JavaScript is fine by me.
> Sorry to have scared you.
Thank you for supporting my point! You demonstrate the very low level very well. Badly hidden snark akin to personal attacks instead of arguments. Exactly my point about that.. "criticism" of that author, far worse than anything I ever read or heard from him and at least an order of magnitude lower level intellectually, if not more.
Thank you for supporting my point! You demonstrate the very low level very well. Badly hidden snark akin to personal attacks instead of arguments. Exactly my point about that.. "criticism" of that author, far worse than anything I ever read or heard from him and at least an order of magnitude lower level intellectually, if not more.
Well, I'm pleased to read this. I say that as someone who fell for the schtick, and he made a couple of sales out of me.
He tells a decent story, and you feel like you've learn something after reading him. Scratch below the surface, and it turns out you haven't.
He tells a decent story, and you feel like you've learn something after reading him. Scratch below the surface, and it turns out you haven't.
Ahh! Thank you for finally articulating what has always bugged me so much about his books. I am reading along thinking, "yeah, yeah, this makes sense" and then realizing later that it actually had no depth.
I like the term "insight porn" to describe that feeling.
This is boiler plate Gladwell critique and has been part of his reputation for a long time. Ironically I think we are due for a contrarian shift back to him being brilliant.
Igon value. Enough said.
I have the exact same opinion about Gladwell.
One day on a flight I started reading his “Blink” when 1/4th of the way I realized he is full of crap.
The realization came after I started noticing a pattern: that he would give an anecdote, or present a situation, explain it a little bit then bam! He would generalize his conclusion to a broader situation. Rinse and repeat.
What a load of junk!
I got introduced to him via his TED talks which I liked. But after reading Blink (1/4th of it), I opened by eyes and stayed away from whatever he said or did.
One day on a flight I started reading his “Blink” when 1/4th of the way I realized he is full of crap.
The realization came after I started noticing a pattern: that he would give an anecdote, or present a situation, explain it a little bit then bam! He would generalize his conclusion to a broader situation. Rinse and repeat.
What a load of junk!
I got introduced to him via his TED talks which I liked. But after reading Blink (1/4th of it), I opened by eyes and stayed away from whatever he said or did.
Someone here used this brilliant phrase: "Insight Porn"
Good counterarguments, thank you. Some caution should be exercised when reading pop sci-like books.
The parts of the book that were meaningful to me were the summaries of other foundational studies and generalized beliefs based on lots of research. His conclusions were sometimes a bit of a stretch, but I accept a little 'dressing up' of results with additional opinion as part of writing to a broad audience
The parts of the book that were meaningful to me were the summaries of other foundational studies and generalized beliefs based on lots of research. His conclusions were sometimes a bit of a stretch, but I accept a little 'dressing up' of results with additional opinion as part of writing to a broad audience
Oh God, thank you for saying this. I cannot read two pages of Malcolm Gladwell and cannot fathom his popularity. Generalizing from anecdotes in an entertaining way: that’s his whole schtick.
Or, maybe I’m an old cranky curmudgeon and should let people enjoy reading his junk science.
Or, maybe I’m an old cranky curmudgeon and should let people enjoy reading his junk science.
I've only read Outliers and David and Goliath, but I really enjoyed them and feel that they provided some tangible benefits in how I think about things.
Could you share some of the criticism against him so I could update any incorrect beliefs I may have?
Could you share some of the criticism against him so I could update any incorrect beliefs I may have?
It's years since I read and then binned any of his books, but to give a concrete criticism of Outliers:
Anders Ericsson, who conducted the study upon which "the 10,000-Hour Rule" was based has written that Gladwell had overgeneralized, misinterpreted, and oversimplified his findings. https://web.archive.org/web/20190320062202/https://radicalsc...
Anders Ericsson, who conducted the study upon which "the 10,000-Hour Rule" was based has written that Gladwell had overgeneralized, misinterpreted, and oversimplified his findings. https://web.archive.org/web/20190320062202/https://radicalsc...
My opinion flipped the other direction. Which totally surprised me.
I used to dismiss Gladwell's "insight porn" (h/t lordnacho). But now I feel like he's a pretty effective advocate, popularizer of views and policies that I agree with. Briefly, he's punching up.
Michael Lewis was the catalyst to reassessing Gladwell. I just frikkin love his Against The Rules podcast series. Briefly, he argues that we do better, both as society and individuals, with referees and coaching.
Then I listened to a handful of Gladwell interviews. A long form chat with Lewis. Book tour stops for Talking with Strangers. I thought: Huh, Gladwell doesn't sound too bad.
So I started listening to other Pushkin Industry podcasts.
I especially love historian Jill Lepore.
So I guess my TLDR is: I reevaluated Gladwell because he's now working with two people I really admire. Virtue by association.
I used to dismiss Gladwell's "insight porn" (h/t lordnacho). But now I feel like he's a pretty effective advocate, popularizer of views and policies that I agree with. Briefly, he's punching up.
Michael Lewis was the catalyst to reassessing Gladwell. I just frikkin love his Against The Rules podcast series. Briefly, he argues that we do better, both as society and individuals, with referees and coaching.
Then I listened to a handful of Gladwell interviews. A long form chat with Lewis. Book tour stops for Talking with Strangers. I thought: Huh, Gladwell doesn't sound too bad.
So I started listening to other Pushkin Industry podcasts.
I especially love historian Jill Lepore.
So I guess my TLDR is: I reevaluated Gladwell because he's now working with two people I really admire. Virtue by association.
[deleted]
Yeah I need to check it out. I think it's also that people (me included) are deeply fascinated by the ability the read other people and what they think.
Two thoughts:
1) If law enforcement ever has the time, they might want to play Maffia or Werewolf. Playing those games enough makes you realize how idiosyncratic lying can be.
2) I'm glad to know that my lecture on lying when I studied psychology basically had the same conclusions as this article.
1) If law enforcement ever has the time, they might want to play Maffia or Werewolf. Playing those games enough makes you realize how idiosyncratic lying can be.
2) I'm glad to know that my lecture on lying when I studied psychology basically had the same conclusions as this article.
> Playing those games enough makes you realize how idiosyncratic lying can be.
In my view this is just one more error springing from the root error of turning "a jury of your peers" into "a jury of random strangers". One point of being judged by a jury of your peers is that they are familiar with the types of things you're likely to do.
But another is that your peers are familiar with the ways in which you're likely to react to things.
In my view this is just one more error springing from the root error of turning "a jury of your peers" into "a jury of random strangers". One point of being judged by a jury of your peers is that they are familiar with the types of things you're likely to do.
But another is that your peers are familiar with the ways in which you're likely to react to things.
People are practiced at telling lies that their peers believe. Random strangers are better at being skeptical because they are not empathetic about the excuses that are necessary to smooth out an explanation.
Are random strangers better? The stereotype is they just based on looks and mannerisms. Dark skin + sweats = guilty. etc...
No, I think everyone is probably equally terrible at detecting lies. Except for the few people who have actually been tested and shown to be good at it. Any other narrative is just a story - we're all pretty bad at guessing each others intentions.
Among Us is the most recent version of those games, and it made me realize how good my friends were at gaslighting me.
What if I told you that playing a low-stakes game and real life are not the same thing?
Most real life lies are also pretty low stakes. "Oh, I'd love to come to Aunt Mabel's party but I can't." "We should totally do lunch sometime."
"Does this dress make me look fat?" It looks low stake, but it is definitely not. Be careful out there.
Which is, of course, totally irrelevant. Nobody cares about detecting those lies. Where's the evidence that big lies are in any way related to little lies?
Everyone tells little lies. But it someone, in a game for example, is so good at lying that you have no idea whether they’re telling the truth, that raises some questions.
How can you trust your judgement on whether they’re truthful about bigger things?
How can you trust your judgement on whether they’re truthful about bigger things?
> How can you trust your judgement on whether they’re truthful about bigger things?
You can't. You will believe what you want to believe, and good liars are great at finding out what you want. A well constructed lie rests on verifiable foundations - ie. they also know when not to lie to earn your trust - and comprises of almost exclusively truths. There is no way to defend yourself once you become the target and start listening.
The only winning move is not to play.
You can't. You will believe what you want to believe, and good liars are great at finding out what you want. A well constructed lie rests on verifiable foundations - ie. they also know when not to lie to earn your trust - and comprises of almost exclusively truths. There is no way to defend yourself once you become the target and start listening.
The only winning move is not to play.
Pathological lying is one of the indicators of psychopathy. Not quite the same thing as what you’re talking about but one can’t be too careful about those things.
This article talks about exactly those concerns.
You should try it. I found it very enlightening to find out how utterly incapable I was to get away with a pretend murder in a primitve computer game with random strangers.
(Even if like me you won't end up playing the game I found the experience worth five dollars)
(Even if like me you won't end up playing the game I found the experience worth five dollars)
This is just silly pseudoscience, new-age BS if you ask me.
The only scientifically proven way of knowing if someone is a liar is to examine the shape and bumps of their skull.
The only scientifically proven way of knowing if someone is a liar is to examine the shape and bumps of their skull.
And the rabbit hole only goes deeper!
"Craniometrists virtually without exception dismissed Phrenology as crackpot science while promulgating an alternative nonsense of their own. Craniometry focused on more precise and comprehensive measurements of volume, shape, and structure of the head and brain but in pursuit, it must be said, of equally preposterous conclusions. (Bill Bryson)"
It's so funny how these pseudosciences diss each other and think the other one is nonsense :)
"Craniometrists virtually without exception dismissed Phrenology as crackpot science while promulgating an alternative nonsense of their own. Craniometry focused on more precise and comprehensive measurements of volume, shape, and structure of the head and brain but in pursuit, it must be said, of equally preposterous conclusions. (Bill Bryson)"
It's so funny how these pseudosciences diss each other and think the other one is nonsense :)
Well, or if they have neatly trimmed facial hair or wear dark clothing.
> The only scientifically proven way of knowing if someone is a liar is to examine the shape and bumps of their skull.
The only proven way of knowing if someone is a liar is to get evidence.
The only proven way of knowing if someone is a liar is to get evidence.
> The only scientifically proven way of knowing if someone is a liar is to examine the shape and bumps of their skull.
Sarcasm?
Sarcasm?
Of course you’d say that, you have the brainpan of stage coach tilter.
I question your skull-bulges, sir.
This was good, and I mostly agree that using verbal strategies that amount to digging into/reviewing the details of what a person is claiming is the best way to detect liars.
The TSA thing at the end seems like a bit of a derail though:
But, Mann says, without knowing how many would-be terrorists slipped through security undetected, the success of such a program cannot be measured. And, in fact, in 2015 the acting head of the TSA was reassigned after Homeland Security undercover agents in an internal investigation successfully smuggled fake explosive devices and real weapons through airport security 95 percent of the time.
I don't doubt the TSA "behavioral detection" is extremely ineffective, but presumably TSA is mostly leaning on other means to detect dangers and failure to detect weapons is more on the xray/backscatter scanners. It doesn't strike me as realistic for TSA to use verbal techniques like asking each passenger to sketch out his travel story to detect if he's lying about having a gun.
One interesting difference it raises is lying about the past/experienced events vs. lying about future intentions. Their techniques seem mostly geared towards differentiating between a person accurately recalling an event from memory vs reciting a fabricated version of their memory/actions. It makes sense this would be helpful for police interrogating a suspect, but it's not intuitively obvious the underlying idea maps to detecting someone lying about their intended future actions.
The TSA thing at the end seems like a bit of a derail though:
But, Mann says, without knowing how many would-be terrorists slipped through security undetected, the success of such a program cannot be measured. And, in fact, in 2015 the acting head of the TSA was reassigned after Homeland Security undercover agents in an internal investigation successfully smuggled fake explosive devices and real weapons through airport security 95 percent of the time.
I don't doubt the TSA "behavioral detection" is extremely ineffective, but presumably TSA is mostly leaning on other means to detect dangers and failure to detect weapons is more on the xray/backscatter scanners. It doesn't strike me as realistic for TSA to use verbal techniques like asking each passenger to sketch out his travel story to detect if he's lying about having a gun.
One interesting difference it raises is lying about the past/experienced events vs. lying about future intentions. Their techniques seem mostly geared towards differentiating between a person accurately recalling an event from memory vs reciting a fabricated version of their memory/actions. It makes sense this would be helpful for police interrogating a suspect, but it's not intuitively obvious the underlying idea maps to detecting someone lying about their intended future actions.
IIRC their 95% failure includes failing to spot explosives and the like in their scanners
Here’s a nice article about their internal tests that failed 95% of the time: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tsa-fails-95-percent-tests-ho...
> In one test an undercover agent was stopped after setting off an alarm at a magnetometer, but TSA screeners failed to detect a fake explosive device that was taped to his back during a follow-on pat down.
That doesn’t inspire much confidence.
> In one test an undercover agent was stopped after setting off an alarm at a magnetometer, but TSA screeners failed to detect a fake explosive device that was taped to his back during a follow-on pat down.
That doesn’t inspire much confidence.
> That doesn’t inspire much confidence.
It does example how superfluous the TSA is.
The 9/11 commission's recommendations never included anything like the TSA - just better comm between the 3-letters and reinforced cockpit doors.
It does example how superfluous the TSA is.
The 9/11 commission's recommendations never included anything like the TSA - just better comm between the 3-letters and reinforced cockpit doors.
I went through a screening with a "robot" - in quotes because it was literally a breadboard with a bunch of wires sticking out of it, a battery and a squarish box. Didn't even have to open the bag to show the agents what it was, went right through the scanner with no comment. And I was nervous as hell cause I was sure I was going to have to explain it, maybe even show that it worked. But nope, not a peep.
Pretty sure they weren't going to let you uhhh..."demo" it.
How white are you, out of curiosity? What's your demographic look like, and how closely did it match the screeners? Seems like if you were nervous that would be additional weighting in the direction of you being questioned, so the additional weighting doesn't seem to have motivated anything.
Before we jump to “how white are you?”, it may make sense to ask “was there anything that could possibly have been the explosive?”
Random wires, breadboards, etc aren’t going to explode without a source of fuel.
Random wires, breadboards, etc aren’t going to explode without a source of fuel.
It was tucked into a backpack along with quite a few other things (including 2 soldering irons, actually). I don't remember exactly what else was in the bag as to whether there was anything that could have looked like fuel in the scanner though, so fair point potentially. However, while it wasn't the point of my anecdote, I'm also fairly confident being white was one of the factors that played into zero questions being asked.
I am white male, and it was in a Southern US airport that was also very white. While that wasn't the point of the anecdote, I'm also fairly confident it played a large part in there being zero follow-up questions.
I've taken a lot of messy electronic prototypes through security when traveling for work. The TSA has never cared. My camera bag, on the other hand, seems to get some baggage screeners very excited. Something about the glass being opaque to x-rays? But most screeners don't care.
It would be pointless for the scanners to ping on copper, ABS, or batteries because every single flyer would have to open their bags and buttholes. It's the C4 and other pyro that they want to know about.
I’ve seen TSA open a bag because they see something on the scanner, see the bag is too much of a mess, and close the back up seconds later and hand it back off to the passenger without investigating at all.
It's likely they want to use "behavioral detection" to be able to arbitrarily choose and pick who to examine. Who can say that the person they are examining did not fidget or look to the side.
This allows them to easily deflect potential racial screening complaints.
This allows them to easily deflect potential racial screening complaints.
It's like the "smell of marijuana" for cops. I'm convinced that the reason (right-wing) law enforcement is against pot legalization is because it removes this excuse, along with "the dog alerted" for arbitrary searches.
Meth and crack also have an odor after smoking them and dogs already can alert on them even when they aren't smoked. It's already a commonplace lie and there's no repercussions when a search turns up empty so why wouldn't they just keep lying? Or even easier, just claim they smelled alcohol.
Police will continue with warrantless search and seizure until they actually face repercussions for misconduct.
Police will continue with warrantless search and seizure until they actually face repercussions for misconduct.
I'm surprised that "micro-expressions" and the work of Dr. Paul Ekman weren't mentioned given how hyped it was several years ago (there was even a drama series called "Lie to Me" I believe). Has this all been debunked?
Best liar ever if you want to see how good some people’s poker face can be:
Prison escapee convinces cop he is actually a jogger: https://youtu.be/vBrnBmUmVzI
Liars of this type probably have been practicing in real situations where their lies got them something.
I think most of us (non nefarious people) don’t have to deal with lies of real significance. I’ve lied at stand-up, and I’m sure people know it. It’s a polite request for dignified forgiveness.
The only real lie that can happen in your life is with a spouse/partner, since that is a calamity in relative terms (betrayal). Kids/Teens will lie about a lot of things, but that should be expected (immaturity). Your company has to lie to you (business).
If for whatever reason you are dealing with major lies of any other kind, then you are probably dealing with a criminal.
So yeah, we should be bad at spotting serious liars since we have no business being around them (e.g your business is crime).
Prison escapee convinces cop he is actually a jogger: https://youtu.be/vBrnBmUmVzI
Liars of this type probably have been practicing in real situations where their lies got them something.
I think most of us (non nefarious people) don’t have to deal with lies of real significance. I’ve lied at stand-up, and I’m sure people know it. It’s a polite request for dignified forgiveness.
The only real lie that can happen in your life is with a spouse/partner, since that is a calamity in relative terms (betrayal). Kids/Teens will lie about a lot of things, but that should be expected (immaturity). Your company has to lie to you (business).
If for whatever reason you are dealing with major lies of any other kind, then you are probably dealing with a criminal.
So yeah, we should be bad at spotting serious liars since we have no business being around them (e.g your business is crime).
The guy isn't dressed like a jogger. Joggers don't usually carry bottles of water either. That's some actual evidence he is unlikely to be a jogger. Instead the policeman is focusing on what the person say.
It’s not the first time he escaped. Here’s his track record:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lee_McNair
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lee_McNair
A lie-detector that works is a trillion-dollar business. A great sci-fi novel that explores the implications of an accurate lie-detector is "The Truth Machine".
I've given a lot of thought to this topic over the years, and have concluded that the way to tackle this problem is indirectly. The problem with "truth" is that it is subjective. There is a better metric to judge: "false-confidence". There is a subtle but distinct difference between a lie and false-confidence. A lie is subjective, being a mismatch between what I believe and what is true. But false-confidence is objective, in that what I believe (regardless of the truth of what I believe) may not match what I assert. We can never know, objectively, if a person is speaking the truth. But we can know, objectively, if a person is speaking with false-confidence.
This might seem like semantics, but focusing on "false-confidence" rather than "truth" is quite helpful in highlighting the real problem that is being solved: communication.
I've given a lot of thought to this topic over the years, and have concluded that the way to tackle this problem is indirectly. The problem with "truth" is that it is subjective. There is a better metric to judge: "false-confidence". There is a subtle but distinct difference between a lie and false-confidence. A lie is subjective, being a mismatch between what I believe and what is true. But false-confidence is objective, in that what I believe (regardless of the truth of what I believe) may not match what I assert. We can never know, objectively, if a person is speaking the truth. But we can know, objectively, if a person is speaking with false-confidence.
This might seem like semantics, but focusing on "false-confidence" rather than "truth" is quite helpful in highlighting the real problem that is being solved: communication.
A lie is a mismatch between what I believe and what I say. It has nothing to do with objective truth.
We sometimes talk about lying versus telling the truth, but this is a shorthand. What we mean by telling the truth is saying what we believe to be true. No reasonable person would say that someone is lying if they say what they believe to be true, but it turns out they are mistaken.
We sometimes talk about lying versus telling the truth, but this is a shorthand. What we mean by telling the truth is saying what we believe to be true. No reasonable person would say that someone is lying if they say what they believe to be true, but it turns out they are mistaken.
Obama once said something like "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your plan". That did not turn out to be true. People said he lied.
Was he lying? Did it matter whether he believed it at the time or not? Or maybe lying or not lying is the wrong lens to view that through, it seems to me to be more like a broken promise, since the person stating that had a high degree of control over the outcome.
Was he lying? Did it matter whether he believed it at the time or not? Or maybe lying or not lying is the wrong lens to view that through, it seems to me to be more like a broken promise, since the person stating that had a high degree of control over the outcome.
Actually, this happens all the time. Especially in business and relationships. Most of the time we don't know what is objectively true. When there is a disagreement about what is objectively true, we often accuse or judge one another as being liars. What you are saying makes rational sense, but in practice human beings get mixed up about objective vs. subjective truth-telling. Using the term "false-confidence" cuts through the gordian knot by decoupling objective truth from subjective truth. It also recognizes that deception is not a boolean measurement (a lie vs. a truth), but is rather a percentage (somewhat of a lie, somewhat of a truth).
I don't think calling it something else is going to remove people's personal stake in the behaviour. When I said reasonable person, I meant an objective observer. People with ulterior motives and something to gain will tend to prevaricate if it's in their interests to do so whatever terminology we use.
Naming is both hard and important. Reading over the comments in this thread, one of the most up-voted of them reads, "Luckily, there is this one reliable method for detecting a lie, checking whether what the suspect says is true."
I'm writing from the perspective of "how would one build an accurate lie-detector?" And my point is that you shouldn't. You should build something that measures false-confidence. It is infinitely harder to create a lie-detector than it is to create a false-confidence assessor because people always mix up subjective vs. objective truth.
It is kind of like the late 90's difference between a "Web Portal" (yahoo) and a "Search Engine" (google). Ostensibly, they were aiming at the same thing: getting us to the content we were looking for. But the difference in name led to a difference in implementation and product. The analogy is even more striking because Yahoo's categorization of links made a stronger implicit claim to being the kind of content you wanted than Google's ranked list of results.
I'm writing from the perspective of "how would one build an accurate lie-detector?" And my point is that you shouldn't. You should build something that measures false-confidence. It is infinitely harder to create a lie-detector than it is to create a false-confidence assessor because people always mix up subjective vs. objective truth.
It is kind of like the late 90's difference between a "Web Portal" (yahoo) and a "Search Engine" (google). Ostensibly, they were aiming at the same thing: getting us to the content we were looking for. But the difference in name led to a difference in implementation and product. The analogy is even more striking because Yahoo's categorization of links made a stronger implicit claim to being the kind of content you wanted than Google's ranked list of results.
Not really, if you think about it, lying is knowingly saying what you believe to be false and what you say is also false. If what you say is accidentally true, then you tried to lie but failed. If you misdirect someone by saying the truth - e.g. because you know the person would assume the opposite of what you say or because you omit a presupposed fact such as that the gas station someone asked for is not closed -, then that's better regarded as deceiving.
At least that's the theory of a dear colleague of mine who published that in various prestigious philosophy journals. I think he got it right. What I disagree with him about is the presumption that there is a "right" theory of lying. In the end, you can define it in different ways, but I do think his definition is a very good one.
At least that's the theory of a dear colleague of mine who published that in various prestigious philosophy journals. I think he got it right. What I disagree with him about is the presumption that there is a "right" theory of lying. In the end, you can define it in different ways, but I do think his definition is a very good one.
That’s not right at all. Lies are false statements about your own knowledge. Even if the fact your lying about happens to be true, you are still lying about your knowledge of it. It’s important to distinguish between the act of lying, the intended result of the lie and the relationship to the true facts. Those are all independent things. You can’t “fail to lie”, though you can fail to deceive with your lie.
Suppose my daughter is accused of stealing the sweets. I might lie by saying I saw her in the garden at the time they were taken. Even if she was actually in the garden then, and didn’t take the sweets, I’m still lying about my knowledge of these things because I didn’t see her in the garden.
Even if I lie about remembering something, such as that I saw her in the garden (maybe it was a long time ago), and it turns out I did see her in the garden I’m still lying because I didn’t recall the memory when I said I did.
>“If what you say is accidentally true, then you tried to lie but failed.”
No, because you still misrepresented your own knowledge. You did not deceive someone with your lie and maybe led them to the truth, but it was still a lie.
Suppose my daughter is accused of stealing the sweets. I might lie by saying I saw her in the garden at the time they were taken. Even if she was actually in the garden then, and didn’t take the sweets, I’m still lying about my knowledge of these things because I didn’t see her in the garden.
Even if I lie about remembering something, such as that I saw her in the garden (maybe it was a long time ago), and it turns out I did see her in the garden I’m still lying because I didn’t recall the memory when I said I did.
>“If what you say is accidentally true, then you tried to lie but failed.”
No, because you still misrepresented your own knowledge. You did not deceive someone with your lie and maybe led them to the truth, but it was still a lie.
I was presenting Andreas Stokke's theory, insofar as I remember it from personal conversation. He is a professor at Uppsala University now and started out his approach with a publication in the Journal of Philosophy. I used to defend your view in private conversations (thanks to a misconception by Augustinus) but have been successfully converted by him and many others.
However, you seem to be awfully certain of your position and present it with apodeictic certainty. If you're really interested in the topic, I recommend Meibauer (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Lying as a reading. You'll see that your view is far less accepted than you think it is, but feel free to correct that by publishing papers about it. I've never followed up on it, but as always in philosophy the controversy never ends. As I've said, I disagree with Andreas a bit about the nature of such theories. In my view, they are in the end arbitrary, based on conflicting "intuitions." Still, I think that upon sincere reflection everybody should be able to convince him-/herself that his definition is better than yours.
However, you seem to be awfully certain of your position and present it with apodeictic certainty. If you're really interested in the topic, I recommend Meibauer (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Lying as a reading. You'll see that your view is far less accepted than you think it is, but feel free to correct that by publishing papers about it. I've never followed up on it, but as always in philosophy the controversy never ends. As I've said, I disagree with Andreas a bit about the nature of such theories. In my view, they are in the end arbitrary, based on conflicting "intuitions." Still, I think that upon sincere reflection everybody should be able to convince him-/herself that his definition is better than yours.
Interesting rabbit hole. I don't think that's quite Stokke's theory, in particular he doesn't seem to think that the fact you are lying about must be true. That's the falsity condition, which doesn't come from Stokke although some others argue for it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
In fact the first parts of both definitions proposed by Stokke are just more formal versions of the definition I gave.
"You lie if and only if you say that p, you believe that p is false..."
It's a false statement about your own knowledge. That's essential. As Stokke says “you lie when you assert something you believe to be false”.
The greater rigor lies in violation of the violation of conversational norms and the purpose of the communication, which certainly seems correct to me. So while my definition and explanation were not complete, they seem to be consistent with Stokke.
The addition of the falsity condition seems to be contested. An attempted lie which is actually (unintentionally) relating the truth is apparently called a palter. I don't find that convincing, it's still a false statement about your knowledge so would meet Stokke's criteria at least as given in the article I found. I'd say it's a class of lie. Maybe he changed his mind later.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
In fact the first parts of both definitions proposed by Stokke are just more formal versions of the definition I gave.
"You lie if and only if you say that p, you believe that p is false..."
It's a false statement about your own knowledge. That's essential. As Stokke says “you lie when you assert something you believe to be false”.
The greater rigor lies in violation of the violation of conversational norms and the purpose of the communication, which certainly seems correct to me. So while my definition and explanation were not complete, they seem to be consistent with Stokke.
The addition of the falsity condition seems to be contested. An attempted lie which is actually (unintentionally) relating the truth is apparently called a palter. I don't find that convincing, it's still a false statement about your knowledge so would meet Stokke's criteria at least as given in the article I found. I'd say it's a class of lie. Maybe he changed his mind later.
No, I doubt he changed his opinion. You're totally right, I misremembered a personal conversation with him where we discussed this principle. Quite embarrassing!
It appears that I would defend the traditional falsity condition, like others do, too, and that was probably even part of our disagreement. Regarding the "palter", I'm pretty sure he defended that this is not a lie. But after my misrepresentation of his position you definitely shouldn't take my word for it. This is not my line of work anyway, in my opinion you can define these concepts as needed relative to a more encompassing theory or purpose, and it doesn't make much sense insisting on one definition over the other. For instance, I believe in a legal context a lie could be defined very differently than for purposes of a moral theory. Regarding the everyday use, I find the version with the falsity condition I've presented above the most compelling.
It appears that I would defend the traditional falsity condition, like others do, too, and that was probably even part of our disagreement. Regarding the "palter", I'm pretty sure he defended that this is not a lie. But after my misrepresentation of his position you definitely shouldn't take my word for it. This is not my line of work anyway, in my opinion you can define these concepts as needed relative to a more encompassing theory or purpose, and it doesn't make much sense insisting on one definition over the other. For instance, I believe in a legal context a lie could be defined very differently than for purposes of a moral theory. Regarding the everyday use, I find the version with the falsity condition I've presented above the most compelling.
I love this. But this is also why I think using "false-confidence" as a metric avoids all these questions by being unambiguous about what is being measured.
That doesn’t seem like the real problem being solved or highlighted? Communication is a vector here that is surfacing a fundamental competitive force and strategy between actors?
Information is power. Knowing something, and that being representative of reality and providing predictive ability related to that thing provides you power in a number of ways (ability to predict and intervene or not depending on desired outcomes being a huge one).
Someone presenting you plausibly correct, yet misleading information (a good lie) provides them a major advantage (short term, or long term depending on the situation). It allows them to influence your behavior and actions in a way they can likely predict and influence your ability to predict or react accurately to something.
A lie detector (as compared to an objective truth detector) would tell you if you were being manipulated or mislead intentionally. Very different from a ‘do they actually know what they are talking about’ aka truth detector like you are referring to, but a very valuable tool if one existed in a competitive world like the one we exist in.
Information is power. Knowing something, and that being representative of reality and providing predictive ability related to that thing provides you power in a number of ways (ability to predict and intervene or not depending on desired outcomes being a huge one).
Someone presenting you plausibly correct, yet misleading information (a good lie) provides them a major advantage (short term, or long term depending on the situation). It allows them to influence your behavior and actions in a way they can likely predict and influence your ability to predict or react accurately to something.
A lie detector (as compared to an objective truth detector) would tell you if you were being manipulated or mislead intentionally. Very different from a ‘do they actually know what they are talking about’ aka truth detector like you are referring to, but a very valuable tool if one existed in a competitive world like the one we exist in.
I think we're saying the same thing. People manipulate one another through communication, not only in a criminal-justice setting, but also in business and relationships. Using "false-confidence" as a metric is simply reminding us that deception has no connection with objective truth. You can lie even while communicating something that is objectively true. You can also lie while intentionally displaying outrageously high false-confidence (i.e., jokes). It is easier to reason about this topic if we choose the right name.
Reading your description though, the only way I can imagine such a machine working would be by analyzing what is said against an objective truth - and that is what the false confidence value is measuring?
If I’m confident of something that is wrong, my false confidence number would be very high - especially if I believed it, right?
If I’m confident of something that is wrong, my false confidence number would be very high - especially if I believed it, right?
The best liars, like the best actors, actually believe what they're saying though, so I don't think false confidence is the answer.
That's my point, though. A lie-detector tries to do the impossible. A false-confidence assessor only does what it claims to do.
"The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time -- and then shut up."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Yes, the best lies are based mostly in truth with a key substitution. And, it is a novice's mistake to keep babbling. The best liars are the ones who must do so their entire lives in order to survive.
To be honest, I do the opposite: I intentionally play with random people by telling them truths in a manner that comes across as lying.
To be honest, I do the opposite: I intentionally play with random people by telling them truths in a manner that comes across as lying.
I played a ton of Among Us in 2020, which is a game where you have to figure out which of your friends are lying. I quickly learned that going off "well they're acting pretty guilty" was an easy way to lose. A friend of mine would immediately jump to accuse me whenever I cast suspicion on them, even if they were innocent.
Way better to rely on actual evidence and not hunches, even more so when it comes to giving someone a prison sentence.
Way better to rely on actual evidence and not hunches, even more so when it comes to giving someone a prison sentence.
There is something of a meta-game there that doesn't exist in "real" cases like criminal investigations. Since everyone knows that they will be guilty some of the time, a reasonably strategy is to act guilty all of the time.
Except this comes in in real life all the time: "you don't need a lawyer here, you're not guilty..." - yes you do. You always need a lawyer. You always should plead the 5th if it applies. No, you should never be talking to law enforcement without a lawyer. No you should not let law enforcement "take a look around" without a warrant.
Real life is full of things you absolutely should do which are sold up and down through media as "looking guilty".
Real life is full of things you absolutely should do which are sold up and down through media as "looking guilty".
The best 47 minutes of legal advice you'll ever get: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Yep, if anything, being innocent is the most important time for having a lawyer. I think not getting charged with a crime you didn't commit is more important than getting away with a crime that you did.
I did the same, though there are weird people who lie for no reason and screw over the team, too, and sometimes you catch those idiots in a provable lie.
The best way to catch liars is to know things they don't know and trap them with that. In Among Us, it could be as simple as two people saw each other do a visual task (one that proves they're not an impostor) then have someone accuse the wrong person, or worse, be the only person that wasn't cleared that's left.
The best way to catch liars is to know things they don't know and trap them with that. In Among Us, it could be as simple as two people saw each other do a visual task (one that proves they're not an impostor) then have someone accuse the wrong person, or worse, be the only person that wasn't cleared that's left.
One Night Ultimate Werewolf has the additional wrinkle that initially most (or all) players don't even know whether they should be lying or not.
Also been playing a lot of Among Us with my friends.
We started out realizing how difficult lying really is. The early games definitely were characterized by just people not able to hide their lies (maybe we were not trained at it ;)).
But after some training it becomes easier to lie, and of course more difficult to spot.
We also sometimes play it with my kids and those from my buddies, but they have a hard time lying, basically partly admitting when they are accused.
We started out realizing how difficult lying really is. The early games definitely were characterized by just people not able to hide their lies (maybe we were not trained at it ;)).
But after some training it becomes easier to lie, and of course more difficult to spot.
We also sometimes play it with my kids and those from my buddies, but they have a hard time lying, basically partly admitting when they are accused.
[deleted]
For me the best game for this is Diplomacy.
Most of us can’t reliably tell when a romantic interest is actively signaling their mutual interest. If we can’t get cooperative activities right, most of us don’t have a chance to spot a liar through nonverbal cues. The fact is that random effects are huge when dealing with people. Is that person you’re interrogating not showing emotion because they’re a psychopath, or because they were taught not to display emotion? Is someone not looking a cop in the eye because they are lying, or because staring someone in the eye is perceived as defiance in many cultures and they don’t want to anger the cop? We’ll probably never be perfectly accurate at spotting lies. A bunch of biometric measurements might help, but current polygraph techniques can allegedly be beaten with training. If trained polygraph techs with special equipment can be beat I don’t know what rules of thumb we’re ever going to give to the general public that will work.
If you know someone really well, you might have a decent chance of knowing when they are acting unusual. Such is the case with parents and teenagers, but suspicion often gets the best of the parents and they misinterpret the cues that they spotted.
A good method would seem to be to catch someone on a logical contradiction, but that has issues when someone is under emotional distress. And emotional distress tends to appear often when someone is innocent but is afraid the evidence points towards them. The family cat may have knocked over Mom’s favorite vase, but the child is less interested in the truth and more interested in avoiding a spanking- so they embellish whatever story they had (in a misguided attempt to make it more believable), which introduces contradictions that the mom notices. The kid technically lied with the embellishments but was innocent of breaking a vase, and gets spanked when they didn’t deserve it. Then imagine the kid’s emotional distress being even higher the next time something happens.
I’m sure that there are a lot of learned people out there that study lying, but I agree with the article’s main theme that most of us can’t reliably tell when our why someone is lying, and we’re overconfident in our abilities.
If you know someone really well, you might have a decent chance of knowing when they are acting unusual. Such is the case with parents and teenagers, but suspicion often gets the best of the parents and they misinterpret the cues that they spotted.
A good method would seem to be to catch someone on a logical contradiction, but that has issues when someone is under emotional distress. And emotional distress tends to appear often when someone is innocent but is afraid the evidence points towards them. The family cat may have knocked over Mom’s favorite vase, but the child is less interested in the truth and more interested in avoiding a spanking- so they embellish whatever story they had (in a misguided attempt to make it more believable), which introduces contradictions that the mom notices. The kid technically lied with the embellishments but was innocent of breaking a vase, and gets spanked when they didn’t deserve it. Then imagine the kid’s emotional distress being even higher the next time something happens.
I’m sure that there are a lot of learned people out there that study lying, but I agree with the article’s main theme that most of us can’t reliably tell when our why someone is lying, and we’re overconfident in our abilities.
There’s an interesting take[0] on defensive mechanisms societies have apparently evolved in order to detect a psychopath in their midst in daily life without having to know that person for a long time.
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/05/05/dares-costly-signals-a... on dares and costly signals, also discussing The Psychopath Code by late Pieter Hintjens.
[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/05/05/dares-costly-signals-a... on dares and costly signals, also discussing The Psychopath Code by late Pieter Hintjens.
interesting, you should submit this as a top level post
What? The zeromq guy died?
Yes. He was diagnosed with lung cancer and chose euthanasia. http://hintjens.com/blog:115 and https://twitter.com/hintjens/status/783254242052206592
> current polygraph techniques can allegedly be beaten with training
No training is needed because polygraphs don't work. Polygraph testing is about as worthwhile as astrology:
https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph
https://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/
And inadmissible in court in many places:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2000/6.html
> if trained polygraph techs with special equipment
There are no trained polygraph techs. They are, at best, con artists.
No training is needed because polygraphs don't work. Polygraph testing is about as worthwhile as astrology:
https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph
https://www.salon.com/2000/03/02/polygraph/
And inadmissible in court in many places:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2000/6.html
> if trained polygraph techs with special equipment
There are no trained polygraph techs. They are, at best, con artists.
I’m not going to vigorously defend polygraphs, but I’ll play Devil’s advocate for a bit. From your the Salon piece you linked to, “In studies, polygraph diagnoses are often wrong, with rates hovering around 80 percent correct”
Which to some people sounds terrible. I certainly wouldn’t want to hang a murder conviction on something with a 20 percent error rate. But on the other hand, 80 percent is better than all but one of the cited results from the Atlantic article, and beats the results from all experiments using untrained people. These con artists are, at best, performing on par with specific lie detection training.
Maybe the equipment is just for show, but who’s to say that further biometric measurements, such as functional MRI, wouldn’t significantly increase the accuracy of biometric lie detection (still technically within the realm of nonverbal cues from the Atlantic article)? I don’t think it could be 100% accurate, but I can reasonably see future polygraphs being legitimate tools for lie detection.
I wouldn’t want my murder conviction to hang on the results of a current polygraph, but I would be satisfied using one to catch an office supply thief. Well, except it would probably be cheaper to just let someone keep stealing supplies than to pay $8k per employee to administer the tests.
Which to some people sounds terrible. I certainly wouldn’t want to hang a murder conviction on something with a 20 percent error rate. But on the other hand, 80 percent is better than all but one of the cited results from the Atlantic article, and beats the results from all experiments using untrained people. These con artists are, at best, performing on par with specific lie detection training.
Maybe the equipment is just for show, but who’s to say that further biometric measurements, such as functional MRI, wouldn’t significantly increase the accuracy of biometric lie detection (still technically within the realm of nonverbal cues from the Atlantic article)? I don’t think it could be 100% accurate, but I can reasonably see future polygraphs being legitimate tools for lie detection.
I wouldn’t want my murder conviction to hang on the results of a current polygraph, but I would be satisfied using one to catch an office supply thief. Well, except it would probably be cheaper to just let someone keep stealing supplies than to pay $8k per employee to administer the tests.
> Maybe the equipment is just for show
Yes, it's a con.
> but who’s to say that further biometric measurements, such as functional MRI, wouldn’t significantly increase the accuracy of biometric lie detection
That isn't what they're doing. The "who" that will say it is actual, statistically significant evidence that it works.
Yes, it's a con.
> but who’s to say that further biometric measurements, such as functional MRI, wouldn’t significantly increase the accuracy of biometric lie detection
That isn't what they're doing. The "who" that will say it is actual, statistically significant evidence that it works.
The US government still requires polygraphs as a condition of having administrative access to classified systems. They're one data point of many, since you already have a clearance and were thoroughly investigated by other means, but this is an obvious area where it is acceptable to use shitty evidence. The cost of a false negative is extremely high, but the cost of a false positive is close to nothing. Any person who can't pass just has to get a different job.
Courts are the exact opposite situation and I hope the practice of using polygraphs in criminal investigations disappears at some point.
People tend to miss that the error rate in a diagnostic procedure is not enough to evaluate the usefulness of a procedure because you need the relative cost of different types of error as well. It's the same reason FAANGs can get away with shitty interview methods. Cost of false negatives is much higher than cost of false positives.
Courts are the exact opposite situation and I hope the practice of using polygraphs in criminal investigations disappears at some point.
People tend to miss that the error rate in a diagnostic procedure is not enough to evaluate the usefulness of a procedure because you need the relative cost of different types of error as well. It's the same reason FAANGs can get away with shitty interview methods. Cost of false negatives is much higher than cost of false positives.
That your post has been downvoted is disheartening. Your reply was factually correct, cited, and reasonably polite.
Perhaps instead of saying "at best" they are con artists, it would have been more polite to say at worst, they are con artists. Probably many earnestly believe in what they are doing, and are just wrong.
Perhaps instead of saying "at best" they are con artists, it would have been more polite to say at worst, they are con artists. Probably many earnestly believe in what they are doing, and are just wrong.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
To be precise: a lot of people (even on hn, especially on hn) are personally and practically invested in authoritarian practices being legitimate.
To vehemently support the policy of the hour as moral and correct, and then to be later shown to be wrong. At best a fool and at worst a criminal. Is more than many can tolerate. They would rather maintain the lie in the face of all evidence.
I’m kinda surprised. I felt this group was much more rebellious a few years ago. A lot of people might say it’s growing up, but I still don’t like it.
I look back on the people I admired, and they questioned authority.
I look back on the people I admired, and they questioned authority.
It really doesn't matter how earnest they are when polygraphs have been known to be garbage pseudoscience for decades, and especially when people's lives can be derailed by the fraudulent "results" obtained from a polygraph or even just the fiction that it can get results:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-doug-williams-war-on...
Calling them con artists is about as polite as I can be.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-doug-williams-war-on...
Calling them con artists is about as polite as I can be.
One thing to add:
> And inadmissible in court in many places:
I'm not aware of any place that accepts polygraphs in a court.
> And inadmissible in court in many places:
I'm not aware of any place that accepts polygraphs in a court.
Then I'll quote the article:
"In the United States of America, (where polygraph testing is a growth industry) the admissibility of lie detector test results is determined by courts and legislators on a State by State basis.
In the Federal legal system, test results are inadmissible as substantive evidence. Whilst some States have allowed test results in criminal trials, States such as such as California have prohibited the admission of such evidence unless all parties consent to its admission."
"In the United States of America, (where polygraph testing is a growth industry) the admissibility of lie detector test results is determined by courts and legislators on a State by State basis.
In the Federal legal system, test results are inadmissible as substantive evidence. Whilst some States have allowed test results in criminal trials, States such as such as California have prohibited the admission of such evidence unless all parties consent to its admission."
There is one weird bit of logic in favor of them in niche cases: they might be good at detecting people who have been trained to "pass" a polygraph test.
This is another good point: you can be interrogating (or interviewing) a suspect under investigation, use a withholding technique and successfully catch them in a lie, only to have them lying for a completely unrelated reason to the original inquiry.
From what I've gathered, the best lies under interrogation are the ones with the most components of the truth and minimal superfluous information. The police will do everything to get you to talk and keep talking, which is why legal representation is so key.
It gets even hazier, frankly, when you realize that not every statement you make can be firmly categorized as a truth or lie. Due to cognitive dissonance our lies to others can soon become lies to ourselves, and where do you draw the line between wholly believing in a lie to yourself and being flat-out mistaken?
The people who study lying the most are the ones who counter it for a living: police, interrogators, investigators, and business people.
> U.K. police, who regularly use sketching interviews and work with psychology researchers as part of the nation’s switch to non-guilt-assumptive questioning, which officially replaced accusation-style interrogations in the 1980s and 1990s after scandals involving wrongful conviction and abuse.
I wonder if this explains a trope I notice in British detective TV shows but not in American ones. Writers have the fictional detectives speculatively throwing around accusations whenever they have a vaguely plausible guess as to what might have happened. Apparently in the hopes that it will scare the accused into confessing right then and there.
Ten minutes into the investigation, and based on no evidence, the detective will say something like, "You were in love with your best friend's husband, weren't you? You wanted him for yourself, and jealousy is the reason that you killed her, isn't it?" And the just-accused person will reply, "Hardly. It's well known among all of us that I felt he was a terrible husband and encouraged her to leave him." And then both will continue on as if all that was no big deal and you can't fault the detective for asking.
Was this once a real technique, and now there's a cultural perception of it still lingering? I'm sure fictional portrayals are inaccurate everywhere, but this particular thing seems unique to British shows.
I wonder if this explains a trope I notice in British detective TV shows but not in American ones. Writers have the fictional detectives speculatively throwing around accusations whenever they have a vaguely plausible guess as to what might have happened. Apparently in the hopes that it will scare the accused into confessing right then and there.
Ten minutes into the investigation, and based on no evidence, the detective will say something like, "You were in love with your best friend's husband, weren't you? You wanted him for yourself, and jealousy is the reason that you killed her, isn't it?" And the just-accused person will reply, "Hardly. It's well known among all of us that I felt he was a terrible husband and encouraged her to leave him." And then both will continue on as if all that was no big deal and you can't fault the detective for asking.
Was this once a real technique, and now there's a cultural perception of it still lingering? I'm sure fictional portrayals are inaccurate everywhere, but this particular thing seems unique to British shows.
I don't think we should confuse a technique for drama in TV with reality.
If British detective shows were realistic, Midsummer county would be dangerous murder hotspot, hehe
If British detective shows were realistic, Midsummer county would be dangerous murder hotspot, hehe
>> Psychologists have long known how hard it is to spot a liar.
Absolutely this.
Lying is a loose concept. Is it lying if I believe it is true? Is it lying if it's just an omission of truth?
You can spot nervousness, you can spot defiance.
I work in a field where people deceive almost 80% of the time, and less than 1 in 10 where caught. The way we approach this is by flanking. Using falsifiable questions the subject cannot determine your intentions, therefore is much more likely to tell the truth (less cognitive taxing).
Absolutely this.
Lying is a loose concept. Is it lying if I believe it is true? Is it lying if it's just an omission of truth?
You can spot nervousness, you can spot defiance.
I work in a field where people deceive almost 80% of the time, and less than 1 in 10 where caught. The way we approach this is by flanking. Using falsifiable questions the subject cannot determine your intentions, therefore is much more likely to tell the truth (less cognitive taxing).
Our brains are complex things, with many independent actors.
There are pragmatic parts that determine what actions would best serve your interest. These parts mostly make the decisions.
There are other "press secretary" parts that come up with good sounding motivations for these decisions. You will believe those reasons, and state them with conviction.
You may then be lying, if the press secretary lied to "you", but you don't consciously know that. Apparently evolution has favored that model, and here we are.
I learned this reading "The Elephant in the Brain" (https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda...)
There are pragmatic parts that determine what actions would best serve your interest. These parts mostly make the decisions.
There are other "press secretary" parts that come up with good sounding motivations for these decisions. You will believe those reasons, and state them with conviction.
You may then be lying, if the press secretary lied to "you", but you don't consciously know that. Apparently evolution has favored that model, and here we are.
I learned this reading "The Elephant in the Brain" (https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda...)
> Lying is a loose concept. Is it lying if I believe it is true? Is it lying if it's just an omission of truth?
I think what underlies this discussion are assumptions that lying is, by default, unethical and that we can trust truth-telling to be beneficial. I have found that neither of these things are factual.
Truths can be devastatingly harmful with no discernible benefit. I have found this outcome more likely when one assumes truth is a moral high-ground, while disregarding the well being of the person on the receiving end.
This led me to conclude that honesty is a poor goal, in and of itself. It is at best a tool, that often requires consideration and compassion to yield a positive outcome.
Much of the same can be said for lying. It isn't the opposite of truthing so much as it is a different tool. Wielded like a blunt weapon, it's harms are legendary. Used with precision, with empathy and with wise consideration of larger outcomes - lying can be used to smooth over small rough spots and avoid large disasters.
In short, it isn't uncommon for lying to be the most ethical of our choices.
I think what underlies this discussion are assumptions that lying is, by default, unethical and that we can trust truth-telling to be beneficial. I have found that neither of these things are factual.
Truths can be devastatingly harmful with no discernible benefit. I have found this outcome more likely when one assumes truth is a moral high-ground, while disregarding the well being of the person on the receiving end.
This led me to conclude that honesty is a poor goal, in and of itself. It is at best a tool, that often requires consideration and compassion to yield a positive outcome.
Much of the same can be said for lying. It isn't the opposite of truthing so much as it is a different tool. Wielded like a blunt weapon, it's harms are legendary. Used with precision, with empathy and with wise consideration of larger outcomes - lying can be used to smooth over small rough spots and avoid large disasters.
In short, it isn't uncommon for lying to be the most ethical of our choices.
...after all, in the end is not truth most situations are about, but power. Tell the truth, you're exposed, vulnerable. Tell something else - a lie sometimes - and the balance of power is restored. For good or bad, who am I to judge.
> Truths can be devastatingly harmful with no discernible benefit.
I completely and utterly disagree with this statement, but I want to try to see how you personally parse this out, so give me an example where this might be the case, if you would.
I completely and utterly disagree with this statement, but I want to try to see how you personally parse this out, so give me an example where this might be the case, if you would.
> Is it lying if it's just an omission of truth?
Yes. It's literally called "lying by omission".
> Is it lying if I believe it is true?
Yes. I'm struggling to keep from bursting out laughing because the answer to both these questions are so plainly obvious that even young children know them, even if they're unable to articulate to you why its lying.
A lie is a lie is a lie.
Yes. It's literally called "lying by omission".
> Is it lying if I believe it is true?
Yes. I'm struggling to keep from bursting out laughing because the answer to both these questions are so plainly obvious that even young children know them, even if they're unable to articulate to you why its lying.
A lie is a lie is a lie.
You're completely right (and this, my friend, is a lie).
Is the field law?
Recruiting - behavioural interviews to be precise - and you're pretty close, I work with methodologies developed by law enforcement/intelligence as well as psychotherapy.
We evolved to be effective deceivers, so if there was a systemic and obvious physical tell (looking left = liar) then evolution would try to eliminate it.
Also self deception helps.
I often think about that. If I can thoroughly convince myself to believe a factual lie, would classic lie detector devices still work on me?
There was an interesting book on the theme that we've evolved to deceive ourselves especially on moral stuff like my side is good, the others are the bad guys https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psy...
Do classic lie detectors work on anyone or is it mostly pseudoscience and theatre?
I find it interesting that the TSA uses these behaviors but their own army’s interrogation school[1] tells their students not to use them.
1. FM 2-22.3 (section 9-6)
1. FM 2-22.3 (section 9-6)
The TSA is security theater. They don't accomplish anything statistically significant.
The TSA is designed to make citizens of the United States feel better about their absurdly outsized risk of dying in a plane highjacking compared to literally every other civilised country on the planet.
Also, it's a huge cash-funnel for the plutocracy. Some people make an enormous amount of money selling this lie.
The TSA is designed to make citizens of the United States feel better about their absurdly outsized risk of dying in a plane highjacking compared to literally every other civilised country on the planet.
Also, it's a huge cash-funnel for the plutocracy. Some people make an enormous amount of money selling this lie.
filed under: Things so true they're nearly physics.
Yup, many of the "signs someone is lying".
Are actually signs someone is uncomfortable/insecure.
And while you might be such because you lie, you might also be such without lying and you might not be such when lying.
Are actually signs someone is uncomfortable/insecure.
And while you might be such because you lie, you might also be such without lying and you might not be such when lying.
> Yup, many of the "signs someone is lying". Are actually signs someone is uncomfortable/insecure.
Which might be why LEO are so partial to them. The power to ruin vulnerable people is irresistible to some folks.
Which might be why LEO are so partial to them. The power to ruin vulnerable people is irresistible to some folks.
I think there are three decent ways to tell if someone is lying: the statement itself (did it contain self-contradictions), the context around the statement (was their hand in the cookie jar), and credibility (does the person have a history of lying).
You can use each of these questions to sway your belief in the truth of a statement, but nothing, short of corroborating facts at hand will give you an absolute assessment. Most of the time you just don't know, and it's a good reminder just how important trust is to a functioning society, and amazing how far some pathological liars can get. Importantly, behavioral queues are often misleading, and a person might be acting nervous for an independent reason, yet register all the behavioral clues of lying.
You can use each of these questions to sway your belief in the truth of a statement, but nothing, short of corroborating facts at hand will give you an absolute assessment. Most of the time you just don't know, and it's a good reminder just how important trust is to a functioning society, and amazing how far some pathological liars can get. Importantly, behavioral queues are often misleading, and a person might be acting nervous for an independent reason, yet register all the behavioral clues of lying.
Any time I talk to someone about this evidence it's always "yeah, most people suck at telling liars, but I'm good at it."
Lake Wobegon effect for people reading.
Lake Wobegon effect for people reading.
There's also the very strong confirmation bias.
We're all very good at detecting the liars we detect.
(This is the fundamental diagnostics fallacy. Absent some known ground truth, identifying hard-to-detect, hard-to-confirm phenomena is, well, hard.)
(This then gets coupled to the treatment fallacy, post hoc ergo prompter. I did A, B was cured, therefore A cured B.)
We're all very good at detecting the liars we detect.
(This is the fundamental diagnostics fallacy. Absent some known ground truth, identifying hard-to-detect, hard-to-confirm phenomena is, well, hard.)
(This then gets coupled to the treatment fallacy, post hoc ergo prompter. I did A, B was cured, therefore A cured B.)
I think people probably immediately think about how they react to their spouse or other very close relationships, and I suspect (haven't looked it up) that people are actually pretty good at detecting lies in those situations because we have so much experience with how that person acts.
Detecting the lies of strangers? Yeah... good luck.
Detecting the lies of strangers? Yeah... good luck.
[deleted]
This article primarily focuses on the ineffectiveness of using non-verbal cues. It doesn’t really go into that much depth on how easily (or not) liars can be detected by analyzing what they actually say. It briefly mentions that this method appears more effective (although the accuracy was still only 80% or so).
I should have included more details, but the claimed expert lie-detectors almost always name non-verbal cues as the trick to detecting liars.
Any time I read about spotting liars I thought "man, I don't know how other people do it, but I suck at detecting lies".
I mostly think this because every time someone on TV insists they're innocent, I believe them, and then they turn out to be guilty.
I mostly think this because every time someone on TV insists they're innocent, I believe them, and then they turn out to be guilty.
Why do you choose to "believe" or not to "believe" an actor based off of what you know to be a performance?
Not actors, actual criminals from the news.
I think that is the joke.
Lake Woebegon effect is such a terrible name. It is very easily possible that every student in a small town is above average compared to e.g. the national average.
And the eponymous commons didn't suffer from a tragedy of the commons. It's still the name.
I have to question whether you're trying to prove GPs point, as this is hilariously incorrect. Unless you're using very unlikely values for easy and/or small.
They're not incorrect.
Firstly, you're assuming independent probabilities between the students.
If it's a single class of 30, for certain skills it might be much more likely than pow(0.5, 30) if they were all specifically coached on that particular skill, or if there are selection effects impacting what type of person ends up in that group of 30.
Secondly, even if we grant the assumption of independence, the claim doesn't rely on "unlikely values for ... small". There's many small towns with a student body of only 5 or less people, and pow(0.5, 5) isn't that unlikely.
Firstly, you're assuming independent probabilities between the students.
If it's a single class of 30, for certain skills it might be much more likely than pow(0.5, 30) if they were all specifically coached on that particular skill, or if there are selection effects impacting what type of person ends up in that group of 30.
Secondly, even if we grant the assumption of independence, the claim doesn't rely on "unlikely values for ... small". There's many small towns with a student body of only 5 or less people, and pow(0.5, 5) isn't that unlikely.
I think you're right but I had to think about it and might not have noticed. How did you have that ready to go?
The probability is just pow(0.5, N) where N is the student population, assuming that the distribution has no skew, assuming independence between students, and assuming the students are drawn randomly from the general population. It's an exponentially decreasing function, so it becomes incredibly unlikely for large student bodies under these assumptions.
I disagree with this argument, but that's the basis of it.
I disagree with this argument, but that's the basis of it.
I have a basic understanding of statistics and a basic understanding of logical fallacies, and I deal with this kind of sounds-good-if-you-don't-think-too-hard "insights" all the time.
> basic understanding of logical fallacies
Did you spot one here?
> I have a basic understanding of statistics
Perhaps an intermediate understanding would help. Entire schools tend to score higher or lower together, also wealth correlates to IQ and scholastic success and zip code. There are also other reasons an entire group would be biased higher or lower.
> I deal with this kind of sounds-good-if-you-don't-think-too-hard "insights" all the time
Uh-huh.
Did you spot one here?
> I have a basic understanding of statistics
Perhaps an intermediate understanding would help. Entire schools tend to score higher or lower together, also wealth correlates to IQ and scholastic success and zip code. There are also other reasons an entire group would be biased higher or lower.
> I deal with this kind of sounds-good-if-you-don't-think-too-hard "insights" all the time
Uh-huh.
Could you help me understand what my fallacy was?
Now I'm thinking of a horror fan fiction version of lake wobegon where they give all kids an IQ test at a young age and murder all those below the national average.
Just my crazy version of what "easy" could entail.
Just my crazy version of what "easy" could entail.
Then there’s the cousin of lying. Bullshitting. It is outright practiced at work and job interviews. Elon Musk at one time was interviewed on how he spots it.
Isn't Elon Musk a great bullshitter himself?
Takes one to know one, perhaps that's how Elon Musk does it.
Or his comments on detecting bullshit are bullshit?
Most policemen aren't really learning state of the art stuff. It's institutional knowledge passed down over time. So they're likely to be far behind the truth. They likely usually don't have the tools necessary¹ to even understand these studies since they are not taught how.
This manifests in hard to prove stuff like this, but also obviously in things like when facial recognition or shot spotter tech is used. Scientists and engineers comprehend the limitations of these tools, but the users here are similar to prehistoric man before the monolith. The tools are magic to them and they rely on them like they are magical truths.
This isn't particularly changeable. So for those who build for these users, it's important to guide them to the right truths and express the right uncertainties.
¹ After all, even the most basic adversarial analysis would be that people are aware of the "eyes averted" nonsense and would subsequently compensate. As a matter of fact, almost anyone who believes in this stuff also believes they can dodge detection because they know these secret truths that everyone knows.
This manifests in hard to prove stuff like this, but also obviously in things like when facial recognition or shot spotter tech is used. Scientists and engineers comprehend the limitations of these tools, but the users here are similar to prehistoric man before the monolith. The tools are magic to them and they rely on them like they are magical truths.
This isn't particularly changeable. So for those who build for these users, it's important to guide them to the right truths and express the right uncertainties.
¹ After all, even the most basic adversarial analysis would be that people are aware of the "eyes averted" nonsense and would subsequently compensate. As a matter of fact, almost anyone who believes in this stuff also believes they can dodge detection because they know these secret truths that everyone knows.
[deleted]
This video is relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemHqUqcpI8
It's about interrogation, and the common notion that a guilt can be inferred by the suspect's behaviour. It shows two example interrogations of innocent suspects, each displaying completely different behaviour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemHqUqcpI8
It's about interrogation, and the common notion that a guilt can be inferred by the suspect's behaviour. It shows two example interrogations of innocent suspects, each displaying completely different behaviour.
Archived version: https://archive.is/9d6iG
Liars and abusers are emotionally invested in what they're trying to convince you of. They try to sell you their story.
That's the best common theme I've found in reality. If someone is trying to convince you to believe them, they don't have your interests as their primary concern. It's all about them.
That's the best common theme I've found in reality. If someone is trying to convince you to believe them, they don't have your interests as their primary concern. It's all about them.
If you liked this you might like Embassytown
Great suggestion. It’s very underrated
Seconding, one of my top 5 SF reads.
> One person was not upset enough. The other was too upset.
This immediately made me think of Camus’s The Stranger, though maybe it’s an overreaction to bring existentialism into the conversation!
This immediately made me think of Camus’s The Stranger, though maybe it’s an overreaction to bring existentialism into the conversation!
I guess my question is, "why would you like to know?" Of course, there are times when knowing important information can be the difference between helping people and harming people. Otherwise, I think there are other ways to either ascertain the truth or even find peace in not knowing. I take some solace in being okay with not knowing some things.
I relieved in a way that it's hard or impossible to tell based on the kind of stuff in the article as I've always been a bit rubbish at that and kind of assumed it was just me. Sometimes a practical way to tell if people are lying is observe them when they don't think you are looking or don't think it matters.
[deleted]
You can't.
When I was younger I had both severe case of Anxiety and I had mastered the art of covering it up very well.
Too many times I have been accused of things I didn't do or lying because of my counterintuitive behaviors.
When I was younger I had both severe case of Anxiety and I had mastered the art of covering it up very well.
Too many times I have been accused of things I didn't do or lying because of my counterintuitive behaviors.
Dr;tl: you can't.
'They found no evidence that people were any better at detecting lies told by criminals or wrongly accused suspects in police investigations than those told by laboratory volunteers.'
'They found no evidence that people were any better at detecting lies told by criminals or wrongly accused suspects in police investigations than those told by laboratory volunteers.'
A great TED talk video about trying to spot kids lying https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6diqpGKOvic
This is a solved problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDc_5zpBj7s
I recall reading about a patient with split-brain (severed corpus callosum) could tell when people were lying. It seems there are verbal and physical cues when we lie.
> It seems there are verbal and physical cues when we lie.
Yes. Not being able to detect lies is a social construction, part of culture. (And so the results reported in TFA are technically useless because everyone involved is operating as part of the unconscious "conspiracy" and so would naturally "discover" that it's hard to detect lies.)
You can tap into this with hypnosis, but it's unpleasant, like being an alien. Imagine being the only person in the room that can tell when someone, anyone, is lying. It would be pretty creepy, eh? Like Twilight Zone creepy. People would shun you. You'd have to hide the ability, eh? And so we come full circle: we all can tell but we're taught not to as children.
Yes. Not being able to detect lies is a social construction, part of culture. (And so the results reported in TFA are technically useless because everyone involved is operating as part of the unconscious "conspiracy" and so would naturally "discover" that it's hard to detect lies.)
You can tap into this with hypnosis, but it's unpleasant, like being an alien. Imagine being the only person in the room that can tell when someone, anyone, is lying. It would be pretty creepy, eh? Like Twilight Zone creepy. People would shun you. You'd have to hide the ability, eh? And so we come full circle: we all can tell but we're taught not to as children.
The article seems to have avoided mentioning the easy way of detecting a lie - go and collect some evidence then compare it to what the person is saying. Incentives count as weak evidence for detecting lies. While not foolproof, it is much more effective than looking for verbal cues.
Detecting lies by assessing someone's demeanour is a symptom. The average person seem to have this unshakeable belief that they are psychic and can deduce other people's thoughts. They can't.
Detecting lies by assessing someone's demeanour is a symptom. The average person seem to have this unshakeable belief that they are psychic and can deduce other people's thoughts. They can't.
> go and collect some evidence then compare it to what the person is saying
It's so much easier said than done though. Think about an example that might come up in daily life. Say, someone says they're busy/absent/whatever at X time, but then you spot them at that time, very clearly to the contrary. Did they lie to you? Sure looks that way. But it could also be that their schedule just changed. How can you possibly tell? Either you have to do it repeatedly and look at it statistically, or go prying around or asking other people to vouch for their story, or you have to ask them directly. Are you willing to do that? Especially if it happens multiple times? What if they in fact didn't lie, but also feel it's an invasion of their privacy to have to give a compelling explanation of what happened? Or what if they did lie, but only due to circumstances beyond your imagination where you might have lied, too? Are you willing to risk your relationship with that person to make a determination?
It's so much easier said than done though. Think about an example that might come up in daily life. Say, someone says they're busy/absent/whatever at X time, but then you spot them at that time, very clearly to the contrary. Did they lie to you? Sure looks that way. But it could also be that their schedule just changed. How can you possibly tell? Either you have to do it repeatedly and look at it statistically, or go prying around or asking other people to vouch for their story, or you have to ask them directly. Are you willing to do that? Especially if it happens multiple times? What if they in fact didn't lie, but also feel it's an invasion of their privacy to have to give a compelling explanation of what happened? Or what if they did lie, but only due to circumstances beyond your imagination where you might have lied, too? Are you willing to risk your relationship with that person to make a determination?
> Say, someone says they're busy/absent/whatever at X time, but then you spot them at that time, very clearly to the contrary. Did they lie to you? Sure looks that way. But it could also be that their schedule just changed.
Maybe they were just busy with the thing you spotted them doing? I’ve been “caught” a zillion times doing a thing by myself because I was booked on my own calendar and didn’t have time for anyone else
Maybe they were just busy with the thing you spotted them doing? I’ve been “caught” a zillion times doing a thing by myself because I was booked on my own calendar and didn’t have time for anyone else
That's also possible. I said "very clearly to the contrary" precisely because I was not talking about that scenario.
I appreciate that clarification. I was coming from the perspective where I’ve been treated as being busy by myself is treated as very clearly to the contrary of being busy.
Even this is hardly fool-proof, since human memory is far from perfect. Someone might say "I was at Tesco's at 4pm" and later video evidence shows they were actually at Tesco's at 2pm. Did they lie or misremember? Unfortunately, police are often very quick to assume that such a small mistake is done in bad faith and that they're lying. In reality, a lot of people just won't remember the exact time they were at Tesco's weeks or months ago; they may even get the day wrong, or the location.
This is why you just exercise your rights and not talk to the police. Let them figure it out instead of risk being branded a "liar" over a simple mistake.
This is why you just exercise your rights and not talk to the police. Let them figure it out instead of risk being branded a "liar" over a simple mistake.
The FBI _loves_ those sort of misstatements.
The notion that behavioural tics can betray lying (or truth-telling) is also part of the kayfabye / stage dressing of truth-determination and vetting.
If you have a set of props (polygraph, truth-teller, various actual or fabricated observations, etc.) that you can present as a plausible basis for claiming someone is lying, then you can apply more severe psychological pressure, possibly getting them to break and confess, though often also simply forcing a false confession, a very real hazard.
(See various accounts suggesting that friendly-demeanor interrogation is far more useful.)
In the account I detailed in an earlier comment on this thread, I'd ... let slip to people who I thought might feed back my counterpart ... that I was in touch with some people who were incredibly good at hacking online information, and dug for (and revealed) a few details I'd turned up ... which actually were based on reverse-engineering a database structure and assessing the contents. (One ... glorious personal weakness of the adversary revealed some critical information I'd been looking for, in particular.) I suspect that message did find its way back, as my adversary was caught entirely unawares.
The net effects weren't entirely unlike a YouTube video on an "amazing mind reader" (actually warning of data surveillance and privacy ... on behalf of a bank): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7pYHN9iC9I
And the CIA's Crypto AG operation, in which a firm allegedly selling products to encrypt Telex communications had been back-doored for decades. The easiest way to decrypt or hack information is to have it in plaintext in the first place.
(Other than seeking justice in my own case, I've not made further use of the data I obtained. Though the information had proved tremendously useful, the experience was also a powerful cautionary tale as well.)
If you have a set of props (polygraph, truth-teller, various actual or fabricated observations, etc.) that you can present as a plausible basis for claiming someone is lying, then you can apply more severe psychological pressure, possibly getting them to break and confess, though often also simply forcing a false confession, a very real hazard.
(See various accounts suggesting that friendly-demeanor interrogation is far more useful.)
In the account I detailed in an earlier comment on this thread, I'd ... let slip to people who I thought might feed back my counterpart ... that I was in touch with some people who were incredibly good at hacking online information, and dug for (and revealed) a few details I'd turned up ... which actually were based on reverse-engineering a database structure and assessing the contents. (One ... glorious personal weakness of the adversary revealed some critical information I'd been looking for, in particular.) I suspect that message did find its way back, as my adversary was caught entirely unawares.
The net effects weren't entirely unlike a YouTube video on an "amazing mind reader" (actually warning of data surveillance and privacy ... on behalf of a bank): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7pYHN9iC9I
And the CIA's Crypto AG operation, in which a firm allegedly selling products to encrypt Telex communications had been back-doored for decades. The easiest way to decrypt or hack information is to have it in plaintext in the first place.
(Other than seeking justice in my own case, I've not made further use of the data I obtained. Though the information had proved tremendously useful, the experience was also a powerful cautionary tale as well.)
> the easy way of detecting a lie
The problem is that is not easy. Lies can be generated easily. Disproving them requires probably 20x the time.
The problem is that is not easy. Lies can be generated easily. Disproving them requires probably 20x the time.
Because that’s going beyond the idea of nonverbal cues. It’s easier to tell is someone is lying about a murder when you found the murder weapon with their fingerprints on it. If you have evidence you don’t really need to worry about spotting the lies.
Finger prints on a weapon does not prove guilt.
Perhaps you made a sandwich with that knife earlier in the day.
Perhaps you own the gun, and therefore of course it has your prints on it. That doesn't mean you fired the lethal shot.
Perhaps you made a sandwich with that knife earlier in the day.
Perhaps you own the gun, and therefore of course it has your prints on it. That doesn't mean you fired the lethal shot.
People are lying when they make false statements deliberately with the intention to deceive.
I guess to know if someone is lying we need:
- to know the facts
- if the person knows the facts
- and the intentions of the person
all the rest is just guesswork, woodoo.
(and yes, many times we will not know if someone is lying or not. But listening to what a person says and confirming it from independent sources could help a lot in the third of the discovery)
- to know the facts
- if the person knows the facts
- and the intentions of the person
all the rest is just guesswork, woodoo.
(and yes, many times we will not know if someone is lying or not. But listening to what a person says and confirming it from independent sources could help a lot in the third of the discovery)
They open their mouths.
No seriously, we all, mostly lie. Stop and think about it for a second.
It could be just a simple thing to make an otherwise humdrum experience seem interesting. No harm no foul. But there it is, its a lie.
Heck, even my dog lies. He overplays the negative to get sympathy... and more food and petting.
Children lie. A lot. If you have a child, you know what I mean.
So yea, just open your mouth. That's how you can tell.
No seriously, we all, mostly lie. Stop and think about it for a second.
It could be just a simple thing to make an otherwise humdrum experience seem interesting. No harm no foul. But there it is, its a lie.
Heck, even my dog lies. He overplays the negative to get sympathy... and more food and petting.
Children lie. A lot. If you have a child, you know what I mean.
So yea, just open your mouth. That's how you can tell.
>> They open their mouths.
No seriously, we all, mostly lie. Stop and think about it for a second.
I disagree. That's one of the oldest falsehoods in psychology. Sure, there are some people who lie all the time, but that's more of a symptom than a universal behavior.
I disagree. That's one of the oldest falsehoods in psychology. Sure, there are some people who lie all the time, but that's more of a symptom than a universal behavior.
> even my dog lies. [...] Children lie. A lot. If you have a child, you know what I mean.
This really sold it to me right here.
This really sold it to me right here.
This seems to be one specific category of lying detection (new training data with no prior training).
This article doesn't seem to discuss machine learning techniques. For example what if we could have someone talk about "nothing" for x hours for a training set, then interrogate them. That's essentially what lie detection machines do when they ask a series of baseline questions. But heart rate is the only input feature they use. We could use word frequency, spoken word speed, sentence patterns, and all the rich feature sets of ML.
For those who have watched the popularity of deception games like Among Us, Secret Hitler, Werewolf, etc, there are verbal and non-verbal cues we all use. And playing with the same players iteratively yields a lot of meta sussing. For example: "You sound guilty because you're usually calm when you're guilty and accused of being imposter. Right now you're excitedly defending yourself"
This article doesn't seem to discuss machine learning techniques. For example what if we could have someone talk about "nothing" for x hours for a training set, then interrogate them. That's essentially what lie detection machines do when they ask a series of baseline questions. But heart rate is the only input feature they use. We could use word frequency, spoken word speed, sentence patterns, and all the rich feature sets of ML.
For those who have watched the popularity of deception games like Among Us, Secret Hitler, Werewolf, etc, there are verbal and non-verbal cues we all use. And playing with the same players iteratively yields a lot of meta sussing. For example: "You sound guilty because you're usually calm when you're guilty and accused of being imposter. Right now you're excitedly defending yourself"
I'd settle for knowing when I'm lying to myself.
If it is a politician, you will know as soon their lips are moving /s
On a serious note, there is no way to know on a sophisticated liar, and there are 1000 tell tales on a bad liar.
On a serious note, there is no way to know on a sophisticated liar, and there are 1000 tell tales on a bad liar.
You have the right to be suspicious
It's quite easy, if it's got two legs and the ability to speak... Expect to hear lies.
Amusingly, dogs can lie too. I noticed this recently.
In short, you can't.
Well, actually, according to the article, you can.
True, but these claims do not survive a scientific review.
[deleted]
I've had two especially notable experiences with pathological liars, discounting smaller encounters with hucksters and various sales/marketing types (not all, but some, and an absolute showstopper when it occurs).
The first was at a part-time job during my days at uni. A new guy had joined the crew, intelligent and affable, but it turned out, simply a pathological lair. We weren't aware of this until ... I forget precisely what had occurred, but apparently lying when filling out bank cheques was among his failings....
The second was a more personal relationship, in which it transpired that I'd been lied to from the very beginning. This person displayed many of the characteristics of borderline / narcissistic personality disorder, and would often become wildly (and increasingly inappropriately) upset under questioning, deflecting or projecting questions and accusations back. I'd had little experience with the behaviour previously and it was exceedingly disconcerting.
This essay on diversion tactics covers many of the behaviours I'd experienced in that incident (I'd submitted it to HN a few months back, though there was no traction): https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversio...
What ultimately broke that case for me was:
- Finding several people who'd known something of the person's background, and comparing notes. Inconsistencies immediately started popping up. Score one for the consistency rule of truth determination. Various audit methods rely heavily on these.
- Realising I had a trove of communications from the person (legitimately obtained --- they'd given them to me, though some reverse-engineering was required to recover data, both points that held significance in later proceedings). It took some patching together of these to generate a clear picture, which was hampered by the false / incomplete story I'd been told, but the full story eventually was clear.
Eventually we were able to pin down the individual under testimony showing the scope of deception and the fact that it was intentional, premeditated, and predated my encounter with the person (I happened to be the sufficiently clueless victim appearing at the right or wrong time, depending on whose viewpoint you take).
Many standard bullshit-detection tactics (see several referenced in https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28ge14/on_nons...) turn out to apply. Sloppy logic, imprecise language, deflecting questions, various forms of special pleading, turning to accusations against the questioner when the situation gets too heated, etc., vagueness as to facts, and inconsistencies within the story (these can require close listening) were ultimately the tells. Even once presented, there was a lot of work left to uncover the actual truth.
In more mundane dealings, what I find is that fairly sensitive and alert to unqualified claims, inconsistent actions, or statements at odds with facts of which I'm aware. It's interesting to see just how often this occurs (I'm thinking of examples from an appliance purchase, broadband service calls, and medial services, within the past year or three), and once those occur, I call the person on their bullshit. I've walked away from purchases or services strictly due to such behaviours --- if you cannot be trusted to tell the truth or admit to the limits of your knowledge or understanding on the simple stuff, much as with Van Halen's brown M&Ms, why the hell should I trust you with the complex bits I don't have knowledge of?
There's a book by an underappreciated author, Jeremy Cambbell, which I've yet to read though it's premise is fascinating. It's The Liar's Tale: A History of Falsehood (https://www.worldcat.org/title/liars-tale-a-history-of-false...), and concludes that lying is a universal behaviour.
(Campbell's other notable book, the 1982 title Grammatical Man, is about information theory, and was a fascinating introduction to the field for me.)
The first was at a part-time job during my days at uni. A new guy had joined the crew, intelligent and affable, but it turned out, simply a pathological lair. We weren't aware of this until ... I forget precisely what had occurred, but apparently lying when filling out bank cheques was among his failings....
The second was a more personal relationship, in which it transpired that I'd been lied to from the very beginning. This person displayed many of the characteristics of borderline / narcissistic personality disorder, and would often become wildly (and increasingly inappropriately) upset under questioning, deflecting or projecting questions and accusations back. I'd had little experience with the behaviour previously and it was exceedingly disconcerting.
This essay on diversion tactics covers many of the behaviours I'd experienced in that incident (I'd submitted it to HN a few months back, though there was no traction): https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversio...
What ultimately broke that case for me was:
- Finding several people who'd known something of the person's background, and comparing notes. Inconsistencies immediately started popping up. Score one for the consistency rule of truth determination. Various audit methods rely heavily on these.
- Realising I had a trove of communications from the person (legitimately obtained --- they'd given them to me, though some reverse-engineering was required to recover data, both points that held significance in later proceedings). It took some patching together of these to generate a clear picture, which was hampered by the false / incomplete story I'd been told, but the full story eventually was clear.
Eventually we were able to pin down the individual under testimony showing the scope of deception and the fact that it was intentional, premeditated, and predated my encounter with the person (I happened to be the sufficiently clueless victim appearing at the right or wrong time, depending on whose viewpoint you take).
Many standard bullshit-detection tactics (see several referenced in https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28ge14/on_nons...) turn out to apply. Sloppy logic, imprecise language, deflecting questions, various forms of special pleading, turning to accusations against the questioner when the situation gets too heated, etc., vagueness as to facts, and inconsistencies within the story (these can require close listening) were ultimately the tells. Even once presented, there was a lot of work left to uncover the actual truth.
In more mundane dealings, what I find is that fairly sensitive and alert to unqualified claims, inconsistent actions, or statements at odds with facts of which I'm aware. It's interesting to see just how often this occurs (I'm thinking of examples from an appliance purchase, broadband service calls, and medial services, within the past year or three), and once those occur, I call the person on their bullshit. I've walked away from purchases or services strictly due to such behaviours --- if you cannot be trusted to tell the truth or admit to the limits of your knowledge or understanding on the simple stuff, much as with Van Halen's brown M&Ms, why the hell should I trust you with the complex bits I don't have knowledge of?
There's a book by an underappreciated author, Jeremy Cambbell, which I've yet to read though it's premise is fascinating. It's The Liar's Tale: A History of Falsehood (https://www.worldcat.org/title/liars-tale-a-history-of-false...), and concludes that lying is a universal behaviour.
(Campbell's other notable book, the 1982 title Grammatical Man, is about information theory, and was a fascinating introduction to the field for me.)
It's always about probing for consistency, congruence, and naturalness. You're never going to be able to spot every lie every time, only individual lies. For example, most women and a few men are able to act improv, that is lie fluidly without hesitation. It's only if you know directly what they're saying isn't true or after asking deeper questions that it becomes apparent if they don't know what they're talking about or begin to contradict themselves.
As my grandmother used to say: "One lie leads to another. Tell the truth because lying is too much work." I would also add that getting caught lying severely destroys trust and so isn't conducive to society either.
As my grandmother used to say: "One lie leads to another. Tell the truth because lying is too much work." I would also add that getting caught lying severely destroys trust and so isn't conducive to society either.
Just think of it as like a GAN neural network.
The liar and the discriminator continue to evolve in an arms race.
I, as an average discriminator can probably tell the bad liars but could be fooled by the good ones.
The liar and the discriminator continue to evolve in an arms race.
I, as an average discriminator can probably tell the bad liars but could be fooled by the good ones.
I read the article. It sounds more like practically everyone is stuck in a steady state of believing the same "tells" like fidgeting, averting gaze, and stuttering they have been told forever, and those things don't work. That's not really like a GAN at all.
Additionally what you say about being able to spot the average liar, as an average person, is contrary to the article. I would encourage you to read the article more carefully to distill the main points.
Additionally what you say about being able to spot the average liar, as an average person, is contrary to the article. I would encourage you to read the article more carefully to distill the main points.
That's not how GANs work.
The only way to lie effectively (if you are committed to lying, which IMO is not a good longterm strategy) is to commit to the lie 100% and then believe it yourself.
For example, if you want to lie about where you were, you have to believe yourself that you were there. If you consciously think you are lying, it won’t work. It’s like forming a new truth and then fully accepting that reality.
Many years ago I worked at a Dominos pizza with a pathological liar. It was so obvious everything he said was false, and he couldn’t stop himself from lying about literally everything. That is not effective lying. Effective lying is believable.
For example, if you want to lie about where you were, you have to believe yourself that you were there. If you consciously think you are lying, it won’t work. It’s like forming a new truth and then fully accepting that reality.
Many years ago I worked at a Dominos pizza with a pathological liar. It was so obvious everything he said was false, and he couldn’t stop himself from lying about literally everything. That is not effective lying. Effective lying is believable.
I worked with a pathological liar for about a year. We didn't have day to day interactions, but he was always eager for an audience and if I had time I'd humor him.
My goal was to let him spin his yarn and wait for him to contradict himself in some way. Rather than directly going a "gotcha" I'd act sincerely confused, "Oh, you just said you met him yesterday, but earlier you said you met that person months ago. I must be misunderstanding." Then I'd just enjoy how effortlessly he would create a new fabrication to cover up the gap in his story. I guess practice makes perfect, or at least better.
He was incredibly bold. Once he told me about spending Thanksgiving with a coworker ... and that coworker was in his cube immediately adjacent to mine. After the BS artist left I asked the guy in the next cube if her heard that ... nope, he was wearing his headphones. When I relayed the story, he said nope, he was more likely to shoot the BS artist than invite him over for a meal.
He ended up getting fired because he was taking time off work to attend classes at Stanford. After a few months of this someone in HR checked with Stanford and they said they had no record of a student by that name. LA few weeks after getting fired, HR received a call from another company checking references on one of our former employees, Dr. <bs artist surname>.
My goal was to let him spin his yarn and wait for him to contradict himself in some way. Rather than directly going a "gotcha" I'd act sincerely confused, "Oh, you just said you met him yesterday, but earlier you said you met that person months ago. I must be misunderstanding." Then I'd just enjoy how effortlessly he would create a new fabrication to cover up the gap in his story. I guess practice makes perfect, or at least better.
He was incredibly bold. Once he told me about spending Thanksgiving with a coworker ... and that coworker was in his cube immediately adjacent to mine. After the BS artist left I asked the guy in the next cube if her heard that ... nope, he was wearing his headphones. When I relayed the story, he said nope, he was more likely to shoot the BS artist than invite him over for a meal.
He ended up getting fired because he was taking time off work to attend classes at Stanford. After a few months of this someone in HR checked with Stanford and they said they had no record of a student by that name. LA few weeks after getting fired, HR received a call from another company checking references on one of our former employees, Dr. <bs artist surname>.
Or could it be that:
It is actually possible to spot a lie, but it depends heavily on the skill of the liar vs interrogator: did they have experience with a previous lie that was similar?
People that are good at lying will specialize in bluffing professions (smuggler, conman, undercover, sales, politics, gambling) and people good at spotting lies will specialize in interrogative jobs (police, inspection, acquiring business, teacher, journalist, border control).
This is an arms race where specific interrogators may specialize in specific liars or specific type of lies. The problem appears when there is a mismatch between the interrogator vs the suspect or if the interrogator is just incompetent. Or maybe the suspect is just a awkward person, or has a guilty rest face. Yes spotting a lie is by far not 100% correct.
To now conclude that spotting lies never works is basically claiming the whole range of aforementioned professions may just as well be done by inexperienced people, so why would one then ever hire a experienced journalist or interrogator?
People that are good at lying will specialize in bluffing professions (smuggler, conman, undercover, sales, politics, gambling) and people good at spotting lies will specialize in interrogative jobs (police, inspection, acquiring business, teacher, journalist, border control).
This is an arms race where specific interrogators may specialize in specific liars or specific type of lies. The problem appears when there is a mismatch between the interrogator vs the suspect or if the interrogator is just incompetent. Or maybe the suspect is just a awkward person, or has a guilty rest face. Yes spotting a lie is by far not 100% correct.
To now conclude that spotting lies never works is basically claiming the whole range of aforementioned professions may just as well be done by inexperienced people, so why would one then ever hire a experienced journalist or interrogator?
"""Terry McLarney once mused that the best way to unsettle a suspect would be to post in all three interrogation rooms a written list of those behavior patterns that indicate deception: Uncooperative. Too cooperative. Talks too much. Talks too little. Gets his story perfectly straight. Fucks his story up. Blinks too much, avoids eye contact. Doesn’t blink. Stares."""
... which (although in a slightly different context) captures the problem of detecting lies in interrogation very well.