Award-Winning Lie Detection Course: Detect Deceit in a SNAP | David L. | Skillshare

Award-Winning Lie Detection Course: Detect Deceit in a SNAP

David L., World-Renowned Lie-Detection Expert

Play Speed
  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x
10 Lessons (49m)
    • 1. Statement analysis 1

      3:28
    • 2. Statement analysis 2

      4:03
    • 3. Statement analysis 3

      5:54
    • 4. Statement analysis 4

      7:30
    • 5. Statement analysis 5

      3:11
    • 6. Statement analysis 6

      7:47
    • 7. Statement analysis 7

      5:31
    • 8. Statement analysis 8

      2:46
    • 9. Statement analysis 9

      7:26
    • 10. Statement analysis 10

      1:24

About This Class

b2e82ab0

Lie Detection in a SNAP

Traditionally, lie-detection techniques relied on body-language cues or the use of a polygraph, popularly referred to as a lie detector, which measures physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and skin conductivity or perspiration levels, while a person is asked and answers a series of questions. And this works only when you can interact with, or at least observe, the person.

Now, thanks to the exciting field known as psycho-linguistics, you can find out whether a person is telling the truth based on how they use language; and the best part is that it works without the need to interact with your subject!

That's right. You can tell if they are lying simply from listening to a conversation or speech, or even from a recording such as a voice mail message, or from an email or handwritten letter.

In this course you’ll learn how to analyze the words people use—either in speech or in writing—and you will be able to determine who is being truthful and who is being deceptive. Even more so, you’ll learn the psychology behind the techniques to gain a complete mastery of your detection skills. 

Dr. David J. Lieberman is an award-winning author, with twelve published books, including two New York Times Bestsellers, which have been translated into 27 languages and selling millions of copies worldwide—including  the internationally acclaimed, New York Times best-seller Never Be Lied to Again.  Moreover, Dr.Lieberman conducts training in tactics of lie-detection and interview and interrogation for the NSA, CIA, and the FBI’s elite Behavioral Analysis Unit. In fact, he created the program that’s mandatory for all Psychological Operations (or PSYOP) graduates in the United States Air Force—and he’s going to teach you, what he teaches to them.

Welcome to SNAP: Statement and Narrative Analysis Protocol, the NEWEST and most advanced method to detect deception—the same easy-to-use-method—the same method that taught to  the FBI, CIA, NSA, and law enforcement agencies around the world.

If you’ve ever imagined what it would be like to instantly tell when someone was lying, you don’t have to imagine anymore; because now it can be your reality. The possibilities are endless when you learn the skill to detect deception in any conversation, statement, email, letter, or voice message.

Dr. Lieberman has demonstrated the ease-of-use and accuracy of these techniques on hundreds of television and radio programs. In a special report for FOX News, host Jeff Rosin declared, “It’s simply amazing! I was with him and he was never wrong . . . not even once. I even learned how to do it and that’s saying something.

During an appearance on Fox & Friends the host shocked the world, when on live TV she announced that she used one of Dr. Lieberman's techniques to learn that her husband was having an affair! 

While interviewing Dr. Lieberman on his nationally syndicated radio program G. Gordon Liddy told his listeners, “I wish I had these techniques back when I was in the FBI.”

Save yourself time, energy and heartache—and arm yourself today with techniques that are presented in the conversational and engaging, no-fluff style, that has made David Lieberman’s work so popular to MILLIONS OF PEOPLE around the world. In just about ONE HOUR, you will learn how to detect deceit without the need to interact with your subject! Again, you can tell if they are lying simply from listening to a conversation or speech, or even from a recording such as a voice mail message, or from an email or handwritten letter.

Don't miss out on your opportunity to enroll now because when the course is deleted, it will only be available to those who own it.

Transcripts

1. Statement analysis 1: traditionally lie detection techniques relied on body language cues or the use of a polygraph popularly referred to as a line detector, which measures physiological indices such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration and skin conductivity or perspiration levels while the person is asked and answers a series of questions. And this works only when you can interact with or at least observe the person. Now, thanks to the exciting field known as psycho linguistics, we can find out whether a person is telling the truth based on how they use language. And the best part is that it works without the need to interact with your subject. You can tell if they're lying simply from listening to a conversation or speech, or even from a recording such as a voicemail message or from an email or hand written letter. In this course, you'll learn how to analyze the words people use either in speech or in writing, and you will be able to determine who is being truthful and who's being deceptive, even more so. You'll learn the psychology behind the techniques to gain a complete mastery of your detection skills. My name is Dr David J. Lieberman, and I conduct training in tactics of Light detection and interview and interrogation for the N S A. C I A and the FBI's elite Behavioral Analysis unit. I'm also a university professor and award winning author with 12 published books, including two New York Times best sellers, which have been translated into 27 languages and sold more than four million copies worldwide. I'm also the internationally acclaimed New York Times best selling author of Never Be Lie to Again and a worldwide expert in the field of line detection. When it comes to statement analysis, there is so much misinformation not because it's so difficult to understand, but because it's so easy to misunderstand. But we're going to simplify everything. Welcome to snap statement and narrative analysis protocol. Our protocol utilizes the four most popular systems, and synergize is them into one easy to learn and easy to use method. The same method that I teach to the F B I C. I a. N s A and law enforcement agencies around the world Criteria based content analysis, CBC, a reality monitoring RM statement, content analysis scan and Lieberman narrative Analysis. Ellen A. This system is so easy to use because it takes out so much of the guesswork. All you have to do is pay attention to a few key elements, which will provide you with the valuable information into a subject state of mind, their true thoughts and feelings and most certainly degree of honesty. If you've ever imagined what it would be like to instantly tell when someone is lying, you don't have to imagine anymore because now it can become your reality. The possibilities are endless. When you learn the skill to detect deception in any conversation, statement, email letter or voicemail, so let's begin. 2. Statement analysis 2: part one use of pronouns how liars distance themselves from their words and others. Ah, personal pronoun in the grammatical sense is associated with a certain individual and could be either subjective, objective or possessive. Grammatically speaking, when discussing a person, we have first person, as in i me, my and mine second person, as in you, your or yours third person, as in he him, his and she her and hers. An incredible amount of information conveyed, gleaned from the pronounce that people choose when riding or even telling a story. On the surface, it might seem like pronouns. Words like I he she they we etcetera, just replaced now owns so that people don't have to repeat themselves. Bill Lost Bills Wallet somewhere in Bill's House is not exactly an elegant sentence. Bill lost his wallet somewhere in his house. Just sounds better. But from a psycho linguistic standpoint, pronouns are important because they can reveal whether someone is trying to distance or altogether separate themselves from their words, and it shines a psychological light onto a person's true feelings and thoughts. That is because in much the same way that an unsophisticated liar might look away from you because I contact increases intimacy, and a person who is lying often feels a degree of guilt. Someone making an untrue statement or telling an untrue story often seeks to subconsciously distance himself from his own words. The personal pronoun I or my, for example, indicate commitment. Ah, confidence and clarity in a person's statement and omitting the I or my from the action demonstrates a reluctance to accept ownership of his words. Let's take a benign everyday example, such as giving a compliment. Ah, person who truly believes what they're saying is most likely to use a personal pronoun because it establishes ownership of the compliment. For instance, I really like your dress or I love it. On the other hand, a person offering insincere flattery might choose to say That's a nice dress, or it looks pretty on you. In the second case, they've removed themselves from the equation entirely. Or, for example, if you ask your boss what she thinks of your report and she responds by saying, I like it, you have a higher probability of truthfulness if she says it's nice or good job, she does not take ownership of her sentence and may not believe fully in what she's saying . In another instance, if someone is lying about his car having been stolen, he may refer to it as the car or that car and not my car or our car. And for a final example when lying about an inappropriate relationship or an allegation of abuse, someone may use such phrases as that child or the relationship instead of my child or our relationship. This type of psychological detachment can reveal a great deal about a person's thoughts and the integrity of his assertion. Before we continue, however, it is important to remember that any indication of deception must be examined within the context of the situation, and we should avoid making a definitive conclusion based upon isolated evidence. Pronoun use or lack thereof is a red flag, but in and of itself is inconclusive and requires us to pay closer attention to the rest of the person. Statement 3. Statement analysis 3: relationship to others. Personal pronoun signify more than just a willingness to take ownership of our words. They can also reveal our true feelings about who or what we're speaking about. For instance, victims of violent crimes like abductions or assaults rarely used the word we. That's because it implies an association or closeness that is certainly not inherent between them and their attacker. Instead, they'll relate the events in a way that separates them from the aggressor, referring to their attacker as he or she and themselves as I rather than we got into the car, they arm or inclined to phrase it as he put me in the car. He was going so fast he was yelling at me, and I was just screaming and so on to recount a story with phrases such as. Then we got into the car. We were going so fast we were both yelling and screaming at each other may indicate I stress, may an association or relationship and perhaps even cooperation. The first phrasing makes it clear that the action was unwanted. The use of the personal pronoun we us or our implies a psychological closeness not typical in a crime Of course, there are more benign everyday applications that we can readily observe. For instance, Ah, friend is telling you about her night out with her boyfriend, and as she recounts the night, she peppers her story with the word we we got to the club. At 10 o'clock, we had a few drinks. We met some of his friends. Then we left about midnight and we stopped to get gas. This sounds like it was a nice evening, but now let's change the language a bit and you'll see how something just doesn't feel right. We got to the club 10 o'clock. We had a few drinks. I met some of his friends. He took me home about midnight, but he had to stop to get gas. When the narrative switches from we to he and I, you can rightly assume there was a dispute of some sort between them, and things didn't end as harmoniously as they started out. Of course, this doesn't always mean that something is afoot, but it does give you a possible revealing insight into the nature of the person's feelings . Whenever I speak to couples, I always find it unsettling when the word we is conspicuously absent from any conversation . It suggests that there may be some friction in the relationship, or at least current resentment or hostility. It's interesting in terms of personalities as well. I find that the more controlling or dominant spouse will typically use phraseology, such as I took my wife on a vacation rather than we went on vacation, and I took my wife shopping with me instead of we went out shopping or even my wife and I went shopping. You take possessions with you, and sometimes a small grammatical detail can give you a huge degree of insight. To be clear, we can't make a snap judgment based on one sentence. But it may make us want to probe further if possible, because language that can notes, closeness and affinity rather than one person taking possession of another reveals an entirely different relationship dynamic. We should add here that, of course, the fair sex can be the dominant personality in a relationship, as may be revealed with phrases such as I sent my husband to the store rather than I asked my husband to go shopping and I had my husband to the yard work rather than I asked him to do the yard work. I don't want to get into a language or grammar lesson here, but in broad strokes, even when a personal pronoun is present, a switch from the active to passive voice becomes an indication of deceit. The active voice is stronger and more directly interactive, indicating that the subject, the person or people in our examples performs the action of the verb in the sentence. With the passive voice, the subject is acted upon by some other entity. For example, I gave her the pin is an active voice while the pin was given to her by me uses the passive voice. Ownership can also be altogether eliminated in the passive voice. Notice the phrasing of the following statements and how they sound progressively less authentic and convincing. One I submitted the report early to the report was submitted early by me. Three. The report was submitted early one. We had to fire her when she was caught stealing to. She was caught stealing and we had to fire her. Three. She was caught stealing and it was decided that she had to be fired. A person who is telling the truth is more likely to use phrases that take immediate ownership of the action with a personal pronoun and active voice, while someone making deceitful statements more often distance ownership or negates it altogether. We should note that pronoun usage is best observed when the subject is fluent in the language that he's speaking or writing in. Also, ah, longer statement rather than a short message such as an A text, for example, is more suitable for analysis because people are often grammatically lacks in such exchanges. 4. Statement analysis 4: part two. The devil in the details. The inclusion or exclusion of details in either an aural or written statement is the source of much confusion when it comes to lie detection, even among seasoned pros. Some will tell you that any story that has a lot of detail is most likely true, while others maintain that a truthful story or statement will contain Onley, relevant facts and anything else is an attempt to mislead the confusion. Surrounding details is the result of several intertwining nuances that weaken distill into three fascinating factors. One significance. How relevant the details are to the entirety of the story or statement to proportion and placement, where and how they appear and, quantitatively speaking, how much time is devoted to them and three integration, how they're layered and whether they are in proper physical and conversational context. Generally speaking, ah, high degree of relevant, vivid detail is a reliable indication of honesty. Deceitful statements, by contrast, are more likely to include a lot of irrelevant detail or be unbalanced, meaning that the person may have mentioned only a few irrelevant details. But they account for 50% of his entire statement or testimony. Finally, Even when the above two criteria are met, details are both relevant and vivid. To determine whether a detail is reliable, we must look at how and where it is integrated into the narrative. Furthermore, there are several other intriguing variables to consider. So let's take a clear look at these factors and the psychology involved. To do this will first examine the overall structure of a statement so we can clearly see the function of details and ways to distinguish between fact and fiction, structure of a statement and the nature of details. It is obvious that a truthful statement should be cohesive and coherent and not contain illogical inconsistencies or contradictions. But this, in and of itself is not enough to rely upon. Much more goes into our analysis, as we will now discuss when a person is telling the truth. The lead up to the main event or opening of this story is usually light on details. Unless they are highly significant to the narrative. A deceitful story will often contain a litany of irrelevant details in the beginning, because one, the person is trying to establish themselves as a trustworthy person who is being as detailed and specific as possible, and to there are many truthful elements to the story because it is during and after the crime or lie that the details need to be rearranged in the truth altered. So it is relatively safe to engage in earnest recall and offer rich detail without worrying about keeping the facts straight. Someone making a deceitful statement often focuses heavily on irrelevant details to mimic the detail found in a truthful statement. This person knows that if their statement is too vague or too generic, it might not be viewed as trustworthy simultaneously. They also know that the more complex the lie, the harder it is to maintain. Therefore, they emphasized truthful, irrelevant information in an attempt to duplicate the depth of truth while simultaneously protecting themselves from fabricating too many details that might come back to bite them later. Keep in mind that unsolicited details those that the person brings up without prompting or asking should be concise and in context, meaning that they are immediately relevant to the point and not a tangential freight train . Indeed, the heavier the trauma, the more these details are expected to be concise and cogent. If, however, the person is just telling us a story about what happened and while dramatic was not traumatic, that she might very well add flavor and color to the narrative. But again, the more emotionally charged the situation is, and the more pain the person experienced, the fewer unnecessary tangents we should expect to see. For example, stating that the mugger reeked of Cologne is fine. An unnecessary extension becomes problematic and dubious. He reeked of Cologne. It was like the cheap stuff that probably sells for $5 a bottle. I don't know how people gonna wear this stuff. The main part of the narrative where the action takes place is often the most detailed in honest stories and abbreviated glossed over or disproportionately truncated in deceitful ones. However, if the beginning and the end of the story is a short is the middle and centerpiece of the discussion, then deception is a possibility. But in and of itself, that is not a reliable indication. You always want to look for proportion and balance in a statement. Finally, in much the same way that during a challenging conversation, interview or interrogation, a guilty person is happy to have the subject changed and the conversation end, Ah, person riding out a false account is equally motivated to be done. Therefore, deceitful accounts are often missing a clearly defined retelling of the aftermath. Certainly with stories that are emotionally charged and dramatic, we should see vivid layers of emotion and reflection. But for the liar, this aspect is the most difficult to fabricate because he must concentrate not just on what happened but how it affected him and the range of emotions that he would have genuinely felt at the time. Com pounding The challenge is that at the same time, he must negate or really accommodate an alternate reality. The truth. The introduction to his story allowed him to stick closely to the facts, and the main part of the story needed a bit of tweaking. But the conclusion is cognitively draining and difficult for him to manufacture, more so because he doesn't believe that is the crucial factor in honest accounts. So he ends it as quickly as he thinks he can. Therefore, almost every made up story will end with the climactic scene and bare minimum accounting of what transpired afterwards. Along these lines, be wary of statements that end with phrases such as, And that's all I can tell you. I don't know what else to say, or that's pretty much everything. Deception is indicated, though certainly not conclusive when a person asserts unsolicited that he cannot tell you anything more. This is because if a person doesn't know anything else that could be helpful, then he wouldn't say anything else. But because he does know something, he feels compelled to let you know that he doesn't know anything more. This is a subtle but significant giveaway. 5. Statement analysis 5: clarify. There's an obvious assertions. Any of the above are red flags. But what makes for a waving red flag is when the superfluous details themselves are qualified rather than confidently asserted, and more so, one that is clarified with an obvious motivation or rationale. Let's consider the following statement. I woke up, I think 70 year? No, maybe it was closer to 7 30 because I was really tired and I needed to sleep a little bit more. Then I went downstairs to eat breakfast because I hadn't eaten much the night before. So I was hungry. I made to know was three eggs I remember now, and two pieces of toast with butter. This is not a statement that is rich in relevant detail. Spending time to clarify the exact time he got up and how many eggs he ate and then proceeding to explain the rationale behind them are a double whammy of deceit. The reason, the person adds narration is to supply you with a reasonable motivation for his behavior, to explain that he is a logical, smart person who does things that are rational. He got up later because he was really tired. He ate breakfast because he hadn't eaten much the night before. He's a reasonable guy who does things that make sense, so there's no way he would ever do anything wrong. The psychology behind the subjects wilful desire to question allowed his own statement is also intriguing. He desperately wants to convince you that he is an honest and trustworthy individual. Therefore, he makes the effort to be perfectly accurate in his recollection of these details, so that you know that he's trying to make sure he tells you how many pieces of toast e eight. Therefore, he makes the effort to be perfectly accurate in his recollection of these details. So the you know, if he's trying to make sure he tells you how many pieces of toast he ate, then you know he will be honest about everything else. Of course, if he is lying, then he can't be honest about everything else. So his level of precision and accuracy comes through on these irrelevant details. To be clear, if he qualifies all the details relevant or not, that is not an indication of deceit. It does indicate a desire for accuracy. You will often find this to be in the case with people who love to talk and who are excited about having the conversation. And this would be the case where the person is not defending himself against analogue ation or in any way feels threatened from the conversation. We already know that a statement should contain relevant details and that any seemingly minor or insignificant ones should not take up the bulk of one's presentation. The next step in our analysis will guide us in determining the veracity of a statement. By examining the qualitative nature of details, we're going to analyze five key elements to help a separate fact from fiction. 6. Statement analysis 6: embedded interaction. Narrative truthful statements are more likely to contain a vivid description of interactions than offer a verbatim or near replication of any dialogue and a clear spatial representation, meaning where the person is physically in relation to other people and objects. For example, a reproduction of a conversation sounds like this. John asked me, Why are you shaking? What's wrong? I turned around and said to him, Point blank, Why are you following me? And he just stared right back at me and didn't say a word. Embedded interaction multiple senses, the more layered the details are and that they include Mawr of one senses. So not just how something look, but how it smelled, sounded and felt. The more reliable they are. And when they are embedded into the narrative, they're also highly reliable. For example, a multi sense embedded interaction sounds like this. The sun was in my eyes when I turned the corner, and that's when I ran smack into him. She knocked over her giant mug, splashing me with scalding hot coffee embedded interaction. Third party perspective. We get another layer of authenticity when a detail contains the words or perspective of another person suppose you ask your friend where she was last night. She tells you that she had to work late, but you're not convinced that's true. So you pressed for more information and ask what she had for dinner. Here are two possible answers. She might give statement one. Oh, I wasn't really hungry, so I just came home and watch some TV with my roommate. She made pasta, but I passed on it. And then I just went to bed statement to Oh, I wasn't really hungry, so I just came home and watch some TV. My roommate was shocked that I would skip a meal, especially her famous pasta dish, she said. That's a first for you. Both answers contain pretty much the same information, but the second adds another layer of death. The roommates point of view. Our instinct might tell us that this answer is more believable and more likely to be truth in the 1st 1 Certainly not including another's point of view doesn't automatically disqualify it as truthful. But the inclusion of it, though, is a reliable indication of authenticity, scene transitions and negation. A person who is honestly relating events is recalling a memory which is like a movie that's playing in their head. A person who is fabricating a story is forced to construct, seen by seeing what happened. So it comes off more like a series of images or photographs strung together to create the impression of genuine movement. For example, if you were to recall what you did last night, you'd be remembering sequence of events where one scene flows into the next. If you were fabricating the details of what you did last night, it would sound less fluid. You would likely engage in what is called seen Chungking. Were you state specific things that you did. I got home, ate dinner, watched a little TV. But it's unlikely that you would offer anything about what happened between scenes as you move from one action to another or anything that interrupted a scene. This means that an untruthful statement will not likely include elements like I knocked over my favorite glass vase on the way back to the kitchen. Or I received a phone call that interrupted my favorite program, or I burned my microwaveable popcorn because I put the setting on too high. These statements also reveal what is called negation. Reporting unexpected complications or negative processing is actually a reliable sign of a trustworthy account. One thing is almost always missing from a story that's not true. What went wrong. Events that are made up rarely include any negative details. A person who is lying is concerned about getting her story straight, and her thoughts are essentially one dimensional. This means Onley primary thoughts, which are positive. Negation is not a primary emotion in much the same way that if I said don't think of an elephant, you couldn't do it. In order to process the information, you need to first think of what you shouldn't be thinking about an elephant. So a details such as it took him three or four tries for the engine to start. Or he spilled half his coffee on himself, trying to get to the front or her hands were trembling so much she couldn't even open her purse. Are embedded details of higher veracity getting your priorities straight. The presentation or order of the information is also revealing when the order of people, objects or even emotions is not integral to the logical flow of the statement. Then the order becomes something we want to pay attention to because it reveals the person's subconscious priorities. An ancient but revealing insight into human nature comes courtesy of the biblical account of two women who came before the wisest of men, King Solomon. They had each given birth to a baby boy a few days apart. While sleeping, one of the women accidentally rolled onto her baby, suffocating him. She then switched her baby with the living one. But when that mother woke up, she realized that it wasn't her son and knew that the babys have been switched. Solomon already knew through prophecy who the living child's mother was, but he wanted to show his thinking with irrefutable logic, he exclaimed. This one says, My son is the live one, and the dead one is your son, and this one says not so. Your son is the dead one, and my son is the live one. Then he said, Bring me a sword. Solomon suggested dividing the living baby in half. One woman screams No, which, of course, indicated that she was the mother of the living child. Have a gnome, Sapir, who developed one of the techniques that we use aptly points out that the first woman told the king her son is dead. Mine is alive, but the second mentions her own child. First, my son is alive. Hers is dead because her focus was on her own child, who was alive, and she accordingly prioritizes him in her thoughts and exclamation. The application of this observation could be quite telling across a spectrum of situations . For instance, when you ask a child about her family, she may respond with my mother, my father, and then rattle off the names of a few siblings. Certainly we should not assume that something is wrong if she puts Daddy before Mommy lists the siblings in birth order or mentions her two sisters and then her annoying baby brother . However, if spotty the dog and Goldie the goldfish are mentioned before Mom and Dad, this might be something to pay attention to 7. Statement analysis 7: part three impression management and dead giveaways When a person is lying but tries to appear otherwise, this leads to what is called perception management. Ah, persons attempt to present a certain image to convey the right effect. The thing is, though, that he almost always overcompensates, And if you look for it, it is glaringly obvious. The truthful person is not interested in how he is coming across. He's unconcerned with his image, unlike his deceptive counterpart, who's focused solely on others impression of him. Let's look at the five dead giveaways of the person who is engaging in impression management. One quick corrections. The honest person doesn't mind correcting himself because he just wants the truth out there . He wants you to know what he knows so that you can help him. The deceitful person needs to manage what you know and how he is coming across either verbally or in his writing. Contrary to what most people believe, trustworthy statements can include spontaneous corrections. So when speaking, he may quickly correct himself. And when writing, you may see one or two words crossed out, for example, he turned left on Elm Street. No, wait. He made a right, She wore a green top. Oh, no. I mean, she had a green jacket over a red top. A person who's being deceitful is more likely to twist the story so that he doesn't have to backtrack, because in his mind he doesn't want to present himself in a way that causes him to confess to anything that is not true. So to him, the correction of a mistake means that he just said something that wasn't true. In fact, he lied. Oh, no, the guilty mind thinks to itself. You will think I'm a liar. You'll wonder what else I could be lying about. Having said that, if he backtracks to many times or crosses out too many words, then we might have to question his statement to self incrimination and self deprecation for the same reason that the honest person doesn't mind correcting himself because he just wants the truth out there and is unconcerned how he appears. Trustworthy statements can often include self incriminating in self deprecating details. For example, he said, We had so much in common that we were soul mates. I feel so foolish for believing him, but I wanted it to work out so badly, she said her landlord had locked her out of the apartment and she needed a place to stay. I know now that I was very naive. Three. The Perfect Gentleman. Because the Liar is engaging in impression management, he wants to make sure that he is seen in the best, most honorable light as a truthful, understanding and caring person. And like most people who try to manage their image, he usually goes too far to the extreme. You may notice, then, the absence of any indication that the person was frustrated, resentful, angry and so on. Unless it aids is narrative, for instance, the person who is fabricating a story will not cut someone off on the road or right that he honked for 30 seconds for the car in front of him to move. To the contrary, you may be treated to a recounting of how he let someone into his lane stopped for an elderly lady to cross the street or took any number of kind, goodhearted actions as decent, law abiding citizens do four over cell expressions. Remember when we said that those who engage in impression management generally go overboard ? Will declarations for emphasis called over cell expressions often indicate this. Consider the subject who says that he is 100% not guilty or is absolutely, completely positive that the injection of such words is often intended to present the image of a person who is confident. But if I asked you if you had ever robbed a bank, you would likely respond with no and not I am certain I never robbed a bank, or I promise I never robbed a bank. Five misplaced altruism in much the same way that I assumes ownership of a person's words. You would expect that the Mawr emotionally charged the account, the more self oriented the person would be. However, ah, person who is lying wants to convince us of how noble and good she is. So she may very well appeal to the public because she is concerned for the welfare of all our Children or wants to make sure that no one else has to experience such hatred again after the passage of time. Such sentiments are indeed noble, but at the time they are an attempt to manage perceptions 8. Statement analysis 8: a word on sociopaths. One of the reasons my method is so popular with law enforcement is because it offers a decidedly strong advantage over the polygraph when dealing with the person who suffers with anti social personality disorder or commonly referred to as a socio path. A sociopath does not feel guilt or remorse. And while they do not relish the consequences of getting caught losing control or being exposed, they do tend to believe everything they say, even if it is a lie. Therefore, the ability to detect psychological responses is handicapped. Because my method does not rely on signs of nervousness or anxiety, subjects cannot out think or outsmart you. Moreover, when it comes to impression management, they often do a worse job than other liars because they have no real sense of self. They're already wearing a mask every day, so it's like they're wearing a mask over a mask. They end up sounding like a caricature of an honest person rather than a genuinely honest person. For example, we know that liars use over cell expressions like honestly, trust me, and believe me, the socio path will sound like a broken record and used these phrases ad nauseum as well as trite expressions and age old cliches. As the centerpiece of his statements, he is a master of words because they cost him nothing, and an unsolicited promise or assurance that he would never hurt us or lie to us should be met with extreme caution in much the same way that the socio path goes overboard with this language, he does so with his demeanor. Ah, person who appears to be overly polite and gracious, is engaging in perception management and trying to convey that he is decent, considerate and well mannered, meaning the kind of person who would never harm a flea, let alone be guilty of whatever it is he's being accused off. Good manners is one thing, but an inappropriate level of politeness is a waving red flag. Once again, our sociopathic friend fails miserably in this area by being excessively nice, polite and gracious because he is practiced it, putting on a show at presenting an image. He is playing the part of an honest person to a T. But that is the wrong part. He should be playing the role of the victim or that of a person who has been falsely accused 9. Statement analysis 9: part for the five most common mistakes all liars make because telling a light requires more mental energy than telling the truth. Liars often resort to shortcuts, meaning they will express themselves in a way that minimizes the need for deep thought and reflection. So be aware of the following five telltale signs of deceit because if you hear or read one or more of the following, you will have good reason to be concerned. One pontificating and philosophizing. Any statement, written or verbal that begins to talk about a sense of fairness or justice could be problematic unless the person is actually confessing, in which case such declarations would be expected. Pay attention to philosophical departures, which can include anything from it. Shouldn't be this way. Two kids these days don't understand, too. This is not the country I remember. The psychology behind pontificating or getting philosophical is that unconsciously, the subject is looking for internal justification for his behavior, while also seeking to present himself as a moral and just person with good, wholesome values to cliches and metaphors. Cliches and metaphors are also suspect because the person is trying to economically convey a mood or emotion that is not genuine fabricating a story is cognitively draining. It takes a lot of mental energy, and so the person is more inclined to borrow phrases and colloquialisms. For example, ask any trauma victim about what happened and you will not get a Nietzschean quote such as To live is to suffer. To survive is to find some meaning in the suffering or a. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Retort. Certainly, with the passage of time and shift in perspective, we may adopt a more philosophical view. But no emotionally charged encounter will ever be conveyed with the latest Pinterest quote on the beauty of suffering three self referral statements. A referral statement where the person refers back to his own words, is also a red flag in writing. Phrases such as as I wrote above as previously mentioned and, as explained earlier, are used to avoid relating incorrect information and because it is cognitively draining to lie, it takes a lot of brain power. It is just plain easier to refer back to what was said in conversation. The same thing occurs. You may hear the overuse of phrases such as, as I said previously, or I answered that before four hedging on relevant details. As we noted previously, I hope you appreciate the humor here. The Liar makes the effort to be perfectly accurate in his recollection of insignificant details so that you know he's an honest person. However, qualifying relevant details with phrases such as To the best of my knowledge and as best as I can remember, are not problematic because the honest person is unconcerned with how he is coming across and will qualify relative details when necessary, because he doesn't mind looking unsure about the facts. The liar, of course, can't risk this. So he hedges on Lee on irrelevant bits of information just to show that he is a person of integrity who would not say something unless he was 100% authentic. Therefore, an indication of deception is a crystal clear recollection of irrelevant details mixed in with deliberately vague or non committal responses such as I don't recall it's possible or I don't remember when it comes to relevant facts. Five. Deflecting, depersonalizing qualifying or globalising. A strong sign of deception is when your subject ponders the question, qualifies the question, qualifies his own answer or answers your question with a question. Therefore, statements that include any of the following are red flags. I don't know why I have been accused of this. That's a good question, or I'm glad you asked that. To be perfectly honest, to be frank or to tell you the truth, well, it's not so simple is yes or no. I would never lie to you. You know how I feel about lying. You know, I'm against that sort of thing. I think it's morally reprehensible. Why would I lie to you if you get this response to an accusation, you've made be suspicious. If he's being accused of something he's done, then he probably has an excellent reason to lie. How could you even ask me such a thing? Or this is crazy. Ask anyone who knows me. I would never do that. My reputation is gold around here. How could you questioned my honesty? The rule of thumb is that a truthful response is short and direct, not convoluted, long winded or complicated. A strong indication of deception is the subject's lack of denial of the allegations against them or a no buried under two pages of musings. If the subject offers a longer explanation. That's okay if the denial was upfront and clear, which means that you have to hear No, I didn't do it or some version thereof. People falsely accused and providing true statements have no reason to hold back from strong, clear denials. People being deceptive, while certainly aiming to distance themselves from guilt may not be, is willing to use direct and unambiguous language in their denial. The bottom line is that if you're subject didn't steal from your company and your nanny didn't harm the child, you don't want to hear or read words like Everyone loves me. My reputation is spotless. I am not a bad person. All of this may be good and true, and it's fine if it is included in the full statement. But the centerpiece of the person's rebuttal should be consistent. Clear denials of the act and not proof that he is not the kind of person who could ever commit such an act. And while we're on the subject of denials, keep in mind that not all denials are created equal. A statement such as I deny these allegations is not the same as I didn't do it, a denial of an allegation means that the person is refusing to acknowledge guilt. But this is not the same is denying the behavior A reliable denial is a clear no and not phrases such as I deny the charges or I would never have done this only a no is a no and for that matter ah yes, is a yes. 10. Statement analysis 10: honesty is at the corner stone of every relationship, whether it's business or personal. And being aware of someone else's true intentions is undeniably valuable, often saving you time, money, energy and heartache. When you know a person's true intent, you have the power to control the situation or, at the very least, not to be taken advantage off. It takes at least two people for a lie to be effective, one to offer the lie and want to believe it. While we certainly can't stop people from trying to lie to us, we can keep them from being successful. From casual conversations to in depth negotiations. The techniques that you have learned will significantly change the way you relate to the rest of the world. Now that you've gained that extra edge, you'll enjoy an unprecedented opportunity to use the most important secrets governing human behavior for enhancing and advancing your business and personal relationships. There will probably never be a way to stop people from trying to lie to you, but now, with each new encounter in any situation, you'll be ready