Detecting Deception

[Scorpion Man]

I so don't want to do this. Please PM me $0.50 for each read of this post so that I can be compensated for my work.

Ok. For starters, a simple example. There was a woman whose children were killed. A national hunt ensued.

The police always start with the parent in these cases. They said to her, sorry for asking this and we know its very uncomfortable, but did you have anything to do with the disappearance of your children.

She answered:

"How can you ask me that? I love my children. I would never do anything to hurt my children."

Comments? I am leaving now, so won't be back for awhile.

[dazraf69]

She didnt say no till the third segmant of her response,she also said "how can you ask me that" usually indicates she was trying to think of a response. .50 shipped!

[ski]

guilty

Cops said "disapearence" she said "hurt"

[AvivaSimplex]

Innocent. A guilty person might say something about, "There's no evidence, you can't prove I did it." An innocent person would get mad at you for even thinking she could do something like that.

But then, I learned this from Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, rather than the CIA.

[DcifrThs]

well, my gut says likely guilty.

but it could be either for both logical reasons. when i'm concerned about something, my first reaction is to try to do everything i can in order to resolve the issue. in this case, if my brother were kidnapped my first reaction would be to try to disclose everything up to the last time i saw him despite being an emotional wreck at that point (so it may take a while to get it all out).

however, different people have different views of people in authority. if the parents contacted the police, i'd expect they'd be very upfront and helpful. if the parent in your example contacted the police and acted like that i'd be very suspicious.

Barron

[Evan]

Why is this posted here?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this posted here?

[/ QUOTE ]

cause ahnuld asked him to post it here [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Scorpion Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this posted here?

[/ QUOTE ]

While it does not matter much for an indexer, this stuff is quite important in life and for professional investors who actually interview management teams.

In terms of Susan Smith (the woman who drowned her kids), she was guilty -- what is interesting is that the cops were totally convinced by her emotional response that she was innocent. Different posters touched on different aspects, but the key in this (simple) example, is that she never did what you would probaby do in that situation. You would, at least for starters, simply say "no". She never says no - and that includes the third sentence -- "I would never hurt my children", for purposes of deception, is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than "no".

This is why I know that Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong are guilty. Their responses are classic..."I have never failed a drug test", etc.

There are a litany of things to look out for. THey include:
1) Attacking the questioner
2) Repeating the question (this is a stall to think up a lie)
3) Belittling the question
4) Being overly specific about what the questioner is asking - the most classic example of this is Bill Clinton asking the lawyers during his questioning around the time of his impeachment proceedings - "What is "is"" and What is sex?
5) Generally failing to actually ANSWER the question -- this is what Susan Smith did in the example above.
6) Our guy said he thinks the absolute worse is bringing in a higher power ("I swear to God"; "I swear on my mother's life".)

BIA suggests sitting in as full view as possible of the person being questioned. This is because the physical aspect of the interrogation is key.

Specifically, they look for movements in what are called anchor points (if I remember correctly). This is almost anything that is touching the ground or a chair as well as the hands. They include things like crossing the legs or arms after a question, shifting your rearend in your seat, picking up and moving a glass of water that seemed just fine where it was or touching your face when you were not before. They actually count these things. THey must be done with 3-5 seconds after the question is asked. A single "tell" they consider inconclusive. Two is evidence of deception. More is worse. The reason the 3-5 seconds is that we acclimate to a lie and an uncomfortable question over time. By the time someone is lying to you or others for the 100th time they are much less likely to exhibit these signs.

THey also talk about how to do these interviews...you do not want to be antagonistic. At the same time, the goal is not to be "nice". It's to be firm and command respect.


I have notes on my sessions somewhere. If I can find them I will post others. I will tell you I have used these for years, both in my personal and professional life. They work. I was sitting in a meeting with the management of AAP recently and it was stunning how these things applied...the CFO was almost jumping out of his seat around some specific questions relating to whether the Board would consider buying back stock, etc. He moved his water, he crossed his legs, and he gave some tortured roundabout boilerplate b.s. as an answer However, when asked if the company had taken some recent issues into account when issuing its lower guidance last quarter, he was cool as a cucumber and answered a very brief "yes" while never moving a muscle. It was like he was wearing a neon sign.

[CobraGoat]

so it seems, through your various examples, that a deceptive "tell" is simply not answering what is asked. i agree with this proposition.

i think someone who answers directly, dismissively and non-combatively would be the most difficult to detect deception. oddly enough, anytime in my life i had been on the hot seat so to speak, i always thought to act like i would if i wasnt lying and then i proceeded to do everything you listed.

[DcifrThs]

gold, jerry, GOLD.

thanks,
Barron