https://parade.com/57236/viannguyen/former-cia-officers-share-6-ways-to-tell-if-someones-lying/
Here is a book written by a former CIA agent claiming to describe how to tell when people are lying. One of the premises is that the brain requires time to invent the lie, while the truth is readily available. So there are several tells that someone is thinking up the lie. There might be something to some of these tells, but I don't believe it is always accurate. There could be other reasons for the pause, or the person could think of the lie and then decide to tell the truth after all.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using
JazzFanz mobile app
Thanks for this contribution. At least two of these were mentioned on the radio program I heard and referred to in the OP. The "authority" did have a book out, which he was hyping.... and had worked for years in law enforcement and as a consultant on the subject.... and used the term "statement analysis".... and was mostly discussing the actual words of the statement.
He considered pronoun usage important. "I" inferred the maker of the statement was taking responsibility. "we" inferred evasion of responsibility.
I imagine that a person who has had time to prepare to lie can do a fair job of evading detection.... especially if they have a lot of experience analyzing behaviors or modes of speaking/writing.
I imagine that people with a lot of experience with deliberate lies can do quite well at looking credible to even experienced lie detectors.
Well, Colton had quite a compendium of Trump lies, and the reason I thought it worth considering his methods is that I remember he was very emphatic in one comment a few years ago that Hillary was a liar.
Taking lies one at a time, checking facts supposedly known or available, is one way to get at it towards a conclusion that someone is lying, but then Jason's rule "It's not a lie if you believe it" would come into the analysis. Well, that might be fair enough when the "facts" are contestable. But I think, even so, that people lie to themselves a lot, and believe their own lies.....
Being human, I think we are not very consistent in our ways generally. We might tell the truth a lot, but still lie when we see some need to do it, or we might lie a lot but still tell the truth when we care to. So hard labels like "liar" or "honest" would rarely be fixed truths.
Colton indicated he was involved in some sort of collegiate project on the subject. I wonder if the character of that project is like what I think "Wikipedia" and "Snopes" are..... social engineering projects designed to project some pre-determined societal objective. A lot of hard work to get people to believe what you want. Really, really.... really.... big lies.
And, come to think of it.... Encyclopedia Britannica... as massive and objective as it is... is still a "British" view of world, perhaps like Catholic or American efforts on the same scale. Wiki and Snopes might not be as thorough or as well-researched... certainly not nearly as scholarly, but it is fair, imo, to class them as Liberal views of the universe. I think Wiki has become practically a joke to our younger people.... middle to high schoolers just laugh at it as a reliable source.
I think objectivity requires us to suspend our biases and analyze the subject with impartiality...…, and that requires some personal honesty and a really well-trained sort of personal discipline. Not exactly things political agenda pushers care for, where there is a premium on persuasion and achieving a particular result.
Well.... perhaps Colton doesn't care to persuade me on this subject.
A lot of very progressive folks in here, practically no "conservatives"..... not my idea of a good forum for a broad discussion. But, for me, it is a gold mine for finding people who are not "just like me". And what I'm actually after is material to challenge my established ideas. Not that I want to be "converted", but that I want to learn how to become persuasive. Or, that I want to just understand some things better.
