Top 10 Secrets of Effective Liars
Extreme Fear Blog
by Jeff Wise
May 3, 2010
As I've written earlier, human beings have an innate skill at dishonesty. And with
good reason: being able to manipulate the expectations of those around us is a
key survival trait for social animals like ourselves. Indeed, a 1999 study by
psychologist Robert Feldman at the University of Massachusetts showed that the
most popular kids were also the most effective liars. Just because our aptitude is
hardwired doesn't mean it can't improve with practice and skill. Here are ten
techniques that top-notch liars use to maximize their effectiveness. (By the way,
this information is offered as a way to help detect deceit in others, not to practice it
yourself. Honestly!)
#1 Have a reason. "Prisons are filled with bad liars," says psychologist Charles
Ford, author of the book Lies! Lies! Lies!. "The good liars are out running
HMOs." So what's the big difference? Basically, says Ford, the trick is to
lie as little as possible - only when you actually have something to gain.
"Pathological liars can't stop themselves from lying, so they tell a lot of little lies
and wind up getting caught," he says. Truly expert fabricators, on the other hand,
save their ammunition - they don't bother to lie unless it's going to get them
something they really want.
#2 Lay your groundwork. Don't wait until you're under the interrogation lamp to
start putting your story together. A 1990 study by psychologist Bill Flanagan
showed that liars who had worked out the details of their stories beforehand had
significantly more success than those who hadn't. As in everything, practice makes
perfect. "It's easier to catch someone in lie the first time they tell it," says
psychologist Dr. Cynthia Cohen
#3 Tell the truth, misleadingly. The hardest lies to catch are those which aren't
actually lies. You're telling the truth, but in a way that leaves a false impression.
Technically, it's only a prevarication - about half a sin. A 1990 study of pathological
liars in New York City found that those who could avoid follow-up questions were
significantly more successful at their deceptions.
#4 Know your target. Good liars have the same gift as good communicators: the
ability to get inside the listener's head. Empathy not only clues you in to what your
subject wants to hear, it will help you avoid stepping onto trip wires that will trigger
their suspicions. "To make a credible lie, you need to take into account the
perspective of your target," says Carolyn Saarni, co-editor of the book Lying and
Deception in Everyday Life. "Know what they know. Be aware of their interests and
activities so you can cover your tracks."
#5 Keep your facts straight. "One of the problems of successful lying is that it's
hard work," says psychologist Michael Lewis. "You have to be very consistent in
doing it." That means nailing down the details. Write down notes if you have to.
"One of the things that trips people up is that they give different information to
different people, who then start talking about it and comparing notes," says Dr.
Gini Graham Scott, author of The Truth About Lying.
#6 Stay focused. "When I'm trying to catch a liar, I watch to see how committed
they are to what they're telling me," says Sgt. John Yarbrough, interrogation expert
with the LA Sheriff Department's homicide bureau. "If I accuse someone of lying,
and they're not very committed to the statement they just made, a red flag goes
up." One of the reasons most people make bad liars is that they find lying a deeply
unpleasant activity. Fear and guilt are evident in their facial expressions. They
want to get the process over as quickly as possible, so they show relief when their
interrogator changes the topic. That's a dead giveaway. Really good liars, on
the other hand, actually enjoy the process of deceiving other people.
"The best liars don't show any shame or remorse because they don't feel
it," says Cohen. "They get a thrill out of actively misleading others. They're
good at it, and they enjoy the challenge."
#7: Watch your signals. It's folk wisdom that people fidget, touch their noses,
stutter, and break eye contact when they lie - the proverbial "shifty-eyed" look. But
research has shown that just isn't so. In his 1999 study of high school students,
Feldman found that nonverbal signals were crucial in determining who got away
with telling lies. "The successful kinds were better at controlling their nonverbal
signals, things like the amount of eye contact and how much they gestured," he
says.
#8: Turn up the pressure. If your target has clearly become suspicious, it's time to
raise the emotional stakes. "The best liars are natural manipulators," says Sgt.
Yarbrough. He cites as a perfect example the scene in Basic Instinct where Sharon
Stone is brought to the cop station for questioning and winds up flashing everyone
a glimpse of her Lesser Antilles. "She was turning them on," Yarbrough explains,
"and that's a form of manipulation - using sexual or emotional arousal to distract
the interviewer."
#9: Counterattack. The fact is, just as most of us are uncomfortable telling lies,
most are uncomfortable accusing others. This discomfort can be used in the liar's
favor. "You'll often see politicians respond to accusations with aggression," says
Stan Walters, author of The Truth About Lying: Everyday Techniques for Dealing
with Deception. "What they'll do is drive critics away from the issue, so they're
forced to gather up their resources to fight another scrimmage."
#10: Bargain. Even when the jig is up, liars can often escape the worst by using a
process psychologists call bargaining. "You want to soften, alleviate, or totally
eliminate feelings of responsibility for the lie," explains researcher Mary DePalma.
"If you can decrease responsibility for blame and the anger that goes with it, you're
really looking at a much better outcome."
* Check out the Jeff Wise blog.
* Follow me on Twitter: @extremefear.
Extreme Fear Blog
by Jeff Wise
May 3, 2010
As I've written earlier, human beings have an innate skill at dishonesty. And with
good reason: being able to manipulate the expectations of those around us is a
key survival trait for social animals like ourselves. Indeed, a 1999 study by
psychologist Robert Feldman at the University of Massachusetts showed that the
most popular kids were also the most effective liars. Just because our aptitude is
hardwired doesn't mean it can't improve with practice and skill. Here are ten
techniques that top-notch liars use to maximize their effectiveness. (By the way,
this information is offered as a way to help detect deceit in others, not to practice it
yourself. Honestly!)
#1 Have a reason. "Prisons are filled with bad liars," says psychologist Charles
Ford, author of the book Lies! Lies! Lies!. "The good liars are out running
HMOs." So what's the big difference? Basically, says Ford, the trick is to
lie as little as possible - only when you actually have something to gain.
"Pathological liars can't stop themselves from lying, so they tell a lot of little lies
and wind up getting caught," he says. Truly expert fabricators, on the other hand,
save their ammunition - they don't bother to lie unless it's going to get them
something they really want.
#2 Lay your groundwork. Don't wait until you're under the interrogation lamp to
start putting your story together. A 1990 study by psychologist Bill Flanagan
showed that liars who had worked out the details of their stories beforehand had
significantly more success than those who hadn't. As in everything, practice makes
perfect. "It's easier to catch someone in lie the first time they tell it," says
psychologist Dr. Cynthia Cohen
#3 Tell the truth, misleadingly. The hardest lies to catch are those which aren't
actually lies. You're telling the truth, but in a way that leaves a false impression.
Technically, it's only a prevarication - about half a sin. A 1990 study of pathological
liars in New York City found that those who could avoid follow-up questions were
significantly more successful at their deceptions.
#4 Know your target. Good liars have the same gift as good communicators: the
ability to get inside the listener's head. Empathy not only clues you in to what your
subject wants to hear, it will help you avoid stepping onto trip wires that will trigger
their suspicions. "To make a credible lie, you need to take into account the
perspective of your target," says Carolyn Saarni, co-editor of the book Lying and
Deception in Everyday Life. "Know what they know. Be aware of their interests and
activities so you can cover your tracks."
#5 Keep your facts straight. "One of the problems of successful lying is that it's
hard work," says psychologist Michael Lewis. "You have to be very consistent in
doing it." That means nailing down the details. Write down notes if you have to.
"One of the things that trips people up is that they give different information to
different people, who then start talking about it and comparing notes," says Dr.
Gini Graham Scott, author of The Truth About Lying.
#6 Stay focused. "When I'm trying to catch a liar, I watch to see how committed
they are to what they're telling me," says Sgt. John Yarbrough, interrogation expert
with the LA Sheriff Department's homicide bureau. "If I accuse someone of lying,
and they're not very committed to the statement they just made, a red flag goes
up." One of the reasons most people make bad liars is that they find lying a deeply
unpleasant activity. Fear and guilt are evident in their facial expressions. They
want to get the process over as quickly as possible, so they show relief when their
interrogator changes the topic. That's a dead giveaway. Really good liars, on
the other hand, actually enjoy the process of deceiving other people.
"The best liars don't show any shame or remorse because they don't feel
it," says Cohen. "They get a thrill out of actively misleading others. They're
good at it, and they enjoy the challenge."
#7: Watch your signals. It's folk wisdom that people fidget, touch their noses,
stutter, and break eye contact when they lie - the proverbial "shifty-eyed" look. But
research has shown that just isn't so. In his 1999 study of high school students,
Feldman found that nonverbal signals were crucial in determining who got away
with telling lies. "The successful kinds were better at controlling their nonverbal
signals, things like the amount of eye contact and how much they gestured," he
says.
#8: Turn up the pressure. If your target has clearly become suspicious, it's time to
raise the emotional stakes. "The best liars are natural manipulators," says Sgt.
Yarbrough. He cites as a perfect example the scene in Basic Instinct where Sharon
Stone is brought to the cop station for questioning and winds up flashing everyone
a glimpse of her Lesser Antilles. "She was turning them on," Yarbrough explains,
"and that's a form of manipulation - using sexual or emotional arousal to distract
the interviewer."
#9: Counterattack. The fact is, just as most of us are uncomfortable telling lies,
most are uncomfortable accusing others. This discomfort can be used in the liar's
favor. "You'll often see politicians respond to accusations with aggression," says
Stan Walters, author of The Truth About Lying: Everyday Techniques for Dealing
with Deception. "What they'll do is drive critics away from the issue, so they're
forced to gather up their resources to fight another scrimmage."
#10: Bargain. Even when the jig is up, liars can often escape the worst by using a
process psychologists call bargaining. "You want to soften, alleviate, or totally
eliminate feelings of responsibility for the lie," explains researcher Mary DePalma.
"If you can decrease responsibility for blame and the anger that goes with it, you're
really looking at a much better outcome."
* Check out the Jeff Wise blog.
* Follow me on Twitter: @extremefear.
| Blogs |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
"Tabloid": The beauty
queen who "raped" a
Mormon
Salon.com
Jul 14, 2011
...[Errol] Morris sees truth as
maddeningly difficult to find
or to recognize, and believes
that human stupidity and
vanity and self-deception
often prevent us from seeing
it. He even suggests that at
certain moments truth may be
situationally unknowable, as in
the lessons on America's failure
in Vietnam delivered by the war's
chief architect, Robert S.
McNamara, in Morris'
Oscar-winning "The Fog of War."
But that's quite a different matter
from claiming that truth does not
exist or is entirely relative.
queen who "raped" a
Mormon
Salon.com
Jul 14, 2011
...[Errol] Morris sees truth as
maddeningly difficult to find
or to recognize, and believes
that human stupidity and
vanity and self-deception
often prevent us from seeing
it. He even suggests that at
certain moments truth may be
situationally unknowable, as in
the lessons on America's failure
in Vietnam delivered by the war's
chief architect, Robert S.
McNamara, in Morris'
Oscar-winning "The Fog of War."
But that's quite a different matter
from claiming that truth does not
exist or is entirely relative.
Truth and Lying
Truth
Lying
Success of lying depends on
most telling the truth
Doctors, lawyers and teachers
lie on important occasions, but
it works because they profess
to believe in truth, and demand
that others tell the truth.
most telling the truth
Doctors, lawyers and teachers
lie on important occasions, but
it works because they profess
to believe in truth, and demand
that others tell the truth.
Dishonesty in schools blog posts
dishonesty in government blog posts
dishonesty in court cases blog posts
dishonesty in government blog posts
dishonesty in court cases blog posts
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
Dutch psychologist admits
he made up research data
By Kate Kelland
Nov 2, 2011
(Reuters) - A Dutch psychologist has
admitted making up data and faking
research over many years in studies
which were then published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Diederik Stapel, a psychologist working
at Tilburg University in the
Netherlands, said he had "failed as a
scientist" and was ashamed of what he
had done, but had been driven to
falsifying research by constant
pressure to perform.
The respected journal Science, which
published some of Diederik Stapel's
work earlier this year, issued an
"expression of concern" editorial in
which it said it now had serious
concerns about the validity of Stapel's
findings.
Stapel was suspended from his
position at Tilburg University in the
Netherlands in September when an
investigation was launched by the
university into his work.
"The official report ... indicates that the
extent of the fraud by Stapel is
substantial," Science's editor-in-chief
Bruce Alberts wrote in the journal's
online edition Science Express. The
editorial was posted online late on
November 1.
In a statement posted on the internet
via the Dutch newspaper Brabants
Dagblad this week, Stapel admitted to
falsifying data and apologized for his
actions.
"I have failed as a scientist, as a
researcher," he said. "I have adjusted
research data and faked research. Not
just once, but many several times, and
not just briefly, but over a long period
of time.
"I am ashamed of this and I am deeply
sorry."
PRESSURE
Science published a study by Stapel
and colleague Siegwart Lindenberg in
April which found that people are more
likely to discriminate against others
when their surroundings are
disordered and messy.
Alberts said he now wanted to alert
readers "that serious concerns have
been raised about the validity of the
findings in this report."
The process of peer review, in which
other scientists are asked to critique
and analyze a paper before it is
accepted for publication in a journal, is
designed to minimize the risk that false
data will get through, but it is not
infallible.
British doctor Andrew Wakefield was
exposed as a fraud and struck off the
medical register in Britain in 2010 after
his paper on links between autism and
the childhood measles, mumps and
rubella (MMR) vaccine was discredited
and withdrawn by The Lancet, which
originally published the research in
1998.
Stapel said in his statement the
pressure to succeed had been too
great.
"I was not able to withstand the
pressure to score points, to publish, to
always have to be better," he said in
his statement. "I wanted too much, too
fast. And in a system where there is
little control, where people often work
alone, I took the wrong path."
he made up research data
By Kate Kelland
Nov 2, 2011
(Reuters) - A Dutch psychologist has
admitted making up data and faking
research over many years in studies
which were then published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Diederik Stapel, a psychologist working
at Tilburg University in the
Netherlands, said he had "failed as a
scientist" and was ashamed of what he
had done, but had been driven to
falsifying research by constant
pressure to perform.
The respected journal Science, which
published some of Diederik Stapel's
work earlier this year, issued an
"expression of concern" editorial in
which it said it now had serious
concerns about the validity of Stapel's
findings.
Stapel was suspended from his
position at Tilburg University in the
Netherlands in September when an
investigation was launched by the
university into his work.
"The official report ... indicates that the
extent of the fraud by Stapel is
substantial," Science's editor-in-chief
Bruce Alberts wrote in the journal's
online edition Science Express. The
editorial was posted online late on
November 1.
In a statement posted on the internet
via the Dutch newspaper Brabants
Dagblad this week, Stapel admitted to
falsifying data and apologized for his
actions.
"I have failed as a scientist, as a
researcher," he said. "I have adjusted
research data and faked research. Not
just once, but many several times, and
not just briefly, but over a long period
of time.
"I am ashamed of this and I am deeply
sorry."
PRESSURE
Science published a study by Stapel
and colleague Siegwart Lindenberg in
April which found that people are more
likely to discriminate against others
when their surroundings are
disordered and messy.
Alberts said he now wanted to alert
readers "that serious concerns have
been raised about the validity of the
findings in this report."
The process of peer review, in which
other scientists are asked to critique
and analyze a paper before it is
accepted for publication in a journal, is
designed to minimize the risk that false
data will get through, but it is not
infallible.
British doctor Andrew Wakefield was
exposed as a fraud and struck off the
medical register in Britain in 2010 after
his paper on links between autism and
the childhood measles, mumps and
rubella (MMR) vaccine was discredited
and withdrawn by The Lancet, which
originally published the research in
1998.
Stapel said in his statement the
pressure to succeed had been too
great.
"I was not able to withstand the
pressure to score points, to publish, to
always have to be better," he said in
his statement. "I wanted too much, too
fast. And in a system where there is
little control, where people often work
alone, I took the wrong path."