I wish this great graphic had special sections for politicians and for government officials testifying in court. But its clues can help detect non-professional liars of many types. [ forensicpsychology.net ]
How to Spot Liars (at least Amateurs)
Navigation
Tabs
-
Jim Good question. I am seeking information about the
-
Robert Giordano How many convicts has the EEOC hired?
- The Death Of American Liberty – Truth News […] Last Rights: "The Death of American
-
-
timmy taes The Two and Only is my favorite podcast on the Int
Very amusing, but nearly completely worthless because it’s based on pseudo-science. Correlation does not equal causation!
A person can be telling the whole truth about something, yet unfortunately falling into one of the “telltale signs” because of other life stressors unrelated to being cornered on a “lie.”
It’s bad enough that we have TV shows that pretend “profilers” and “forensic psychologists” (like “Dr Cal Lightman”) can discern truth from lie based on a facial tic, a body posture, or an inflection. All these things are based on equating correlation and causation, which is a serious logical and scientific no-no!
I did find it amusing, though, so thanks for the laughs!
Jim, we already know how to tell when a politician is lying.
Tom, good point. Maybe somebody can put together a graphic to help determine when a pol is telling the truth (like the broken clock that is correct twice a day).
If they wanted to make the above graphic more realistic, perhaps they could have had the cop charge the bad guy with a conspiracy to break in all the houses in that zip code. The graphic fails to capture Official Deceits..
Come on now you skeptics, in order for a politician to knowingly tell a lie, they would have to be independently thinking rather than following partisan shibboleth or the pieties of Conventional Wisdom.
My. Looks a lot like my day job. 😀
LawHobbit, what do you think of that chart? Does it ring accurate, based on your experience?
A, C, D, F of the “statements” section seem pretty common. Not as sure about B and E.
In #2 I’ve heard that scratching the nose and varieties of mouth-covering are also indicators. Supposedly where the person is looking (eyes up/down/left/right) may have some connection to the part of the brain they’re accessing for the information – memory, or fantasy. But I don’t pay much attention to that.
Emotional ones – those are news (not saying they’re wrong, just not anything I’ve noticed – but I haven’t been looking), though the difference in smiles is known.
4a – a liar is just as likely to go on the offensive, I think.
4b, 4c. Yep.
Microexpressions – they’ve even got the guy in court. And yes, you can sometimes (which is why I watch the person speaking, when I can) see “flashes” of emotion. The witness stand being parallel to the bench is common in most courtrooms – AND it’s a very bad idea.
There are other methodologies. “Rephrasing,” which poltiicians use a lot, where the answerer “rephrases” the question to something different and then answers THAT question, rather than what was asked. The very obvious “multiple answers to the same question” one. And, of course, the ever popular “I can’t recall.”
Lawhobbit, thanks for adding your expertise as a judge to this blog.
That’s an excellent point about the importance of the judge being able to see the witness’es face.
I guess reading someone part of the Oregon statute on perjury might be considered a bit heavy-handed.
Nowadays, many culprits wouldn’t recognize the meaning of perjury.
Too many syllables, for one, and it’s not a word they use on American Idol a lot for another. 😀