S
Seiji
Guest
Original poster
Lying is totally a science.
We shouldn't use this list as a 100% accurate guide. I omit contractions and add words to be more ocnvincing when I'm telling the truth to someone who might not believe me, or if there's bad consequences if someone doesn't believe me. i.e.: If my boss asks me why I was late I'll avoid contractions and slang so that I don't sound casual/like I'm blowing it off, and tell her the truth (that I didn't get out of bed in time) but I'll probably also add that my alarm hasn't been going off every time and I had to wake my boyfriend up to move his truck).
Similarly, nervous habits are indicative of lying, but not exclusive to it. Someone might simply be nervous about something else or distracted! I could go on.
You're assuming whoever made that got paid for it....Where the fuck do I go to get paid for illustratin' infographics. Fuck.
I think what the infographic is trying to say is that these are all signs of potential lying, particularly when two or more of these things are being displayed by the person you are trying to gauge.
It's not that we use any of these techniques to tell whether or not a person is lying on a day to day basis. For example: "Did you get the recipe from grandma?" "Um... Yes!" You're not going to use this comprehensive list to gauge their eye-movements, the wrinkles on their face, their means of speaking, lack (or extensive use) of contractions, whether or not their answer was too clipped... No one in their right mind is going to use that for something so trivial.
However, there is a very valid reason these techniques are taught to interrogators and law enforcement: they work. The articles you posted, @Lady Sabine, assert that they do not. However, the articles themselves relent and say that there have been experiments utilizing these techniques that show they do in fact work, and to a very high degree. What I'm trying to say is that, when you use these techniques in conjunction with whatever other techniques interrogators use, you can gauge whether or not a person is lying.
Example: "Where were you the night Asmo killed Diana?!"
If the suspect is looking up and away, using contractions then not using them, has an overly-elaborate story of where they were, is sweating profusely, gets loud before getting quiet again... you bet your ass they're lying about something.
At least, that's what I took from the neat little image I posted earlier.
You're assuming whoever made that got paid for it.
Also, Advertising, yo! Grab the customer's attention with a worrying or fascinating fact, and then continue on to the info about how the product or service relates to that :3
I would look at this information as incomplete. There may not be evidence of being able to tell if a person is lying on a global scale, that Shouldn't exclude locally or even regionally. And how many of these studies included people under the stress of real world lying? If none, then how did they compensate for that? I couldn't find an answer in your links. Also, what type of lies are we discussing? If we are speaking generally then I would agree with you, but only in the widest spectrum.
While I can agree with you on some points the evidence isn't presented as a whole. And you also seem to be riding extremely hard on the idea that this article and the paper you linked are infallible. Any nerd will tell you being so closed minded is bad.
(I'm assuming you're talking to me. If you meant it for someone else, sorry)
For that matter, all human information is incomplete. However, there are predictable things and unpredictable ones, in which lying seems to fit into the latter category pretty firmly.
It's difficult to measure "real world impact" because of the variables associated with it. If everyone is lying about different things, how do we know the behavioral differences aren't caused by their reactions to work/SOs/dieting/religion/politics/etc.? The study would need to find a diverse group of people, including as many racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds as possible, and have them all tell nearly the same real world lie. It would be an awesome experiment, but insanely difficult and expensive to actually do.
As for excluding locally and regionally, theory =/= peer reviewed studies. Has a study been done on determining how lies vary from place to place?
Now, concerning your ad hominem...
I wouldn't identify myself as closed-minded nor "bad", nor have I stated that any information is infallible. Instead of quoting an infographic or personal experience, I am getting my info from the most scientifically sound pieces of evidence presented on this board at the moment. You're making a pretty weak argument without presenting a logical alternative or any sources. Do you have any ideas for how I should better make my argument?