Scientists have identified 50
individuals who are able to spot deception with great accuracy after testing
more than 15,000 people. Eyes for Lies is one of the 50 people.
More
Eyes kept score on her blog for 7.5 years and had an accuracy rate of 95%
after identifying truth and deception in
38/40 people
before the truth was known by watching media clips. A record comparable to none.
Eyes for Lies is not psychic.
A reader sent me this video on Facebook because there is a good microexpression in it. See if you can find it! Please refrain from any discussions on politics. This blog is about understanding people and spotting deception. Thanks!
I identify what the microexpression is in the comment section. Eyes for Lies reader, J, detailed it perfectly.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
I got a laugh last night. I was watching Oprah and on her show, she aired a segment of the movie "Up in the air" directed by Jason Reitman. Reitman was one of her guests.
During the preview, one of the actors, who supposedly lost his job, was talking to George Clooney, who plays Ryan Bingham in the movie. Bingham (Clooney) fires the man and they show a clip of the man venting his anger at Bingham. I was immediately taken back because the fired man displays a classic anger micro expression.
I was like, "What the heck?! That man was good!" His lip quivered in anger and he showed disgust. I actually sat up and started paying more attention. I woke up a bit! I never see micro expressions in actors. It's unheard of (outside of Lie to Me)!!! Then they played a few more actors and I was like, "Wholly cow! Where did they get these guys? This is good!!"
Then I started wondering if the clips were of real people and they just inserted them in.
After the preview, Oprah disclosed that they weren't actors. They were real people who were laid off. Director Jason Reitman hired them to tell their stories and it gave his movie much more impact.
I loved it!!
Hey, if you are a movie production house and you read this, I'd love to help you make movies more realistic like this! Did you know even if people don't consciously know they perceive micro expressions, their body still responds to them? Check this out!
It was the most refreshing thing. I'm actually thinking of going to see that movie. Maybe you will, too?
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Now that all of you have voted on what you think are my biggest clues to deception, I thought I would share with you my thoughts.
I feel strongly that my two biggest tip-offs that someone is lying are inconsistencies in emotions, and odd word choices. These are what I believe are my two biggest clues.
Read moreNext I would have to say is inconsistencies in fact, followed by inconsistencies in personality/character, and microexpressions. The last two being interchangeable.
Inconsistencies in emotions
Odd word choices
Inconsistencies in fact
Inconsistencies in personality/character
Microexpressions
Here are your thoughts:
Microexpressions aren't all that common, or if they are, I don't always consciously notice them, and I don't blog about seeing them all that much. I have to wonder: Do I see them, register them into my equation, but I am not conscious of them? I don't know.
I took a few minutes to review a handful of cases in my blog to see what clues I truly used most, and I have to say I was surprised. Of course this is nothing scientific, and could totally change if we reviewed every case I have discussed, but it is interesting nonetheless:
Anna Ayala's son: inconsistent emotions, odd word choices John Mark Karr: inconsistent emotions, inconsistent facts Ted Haggard: inconsistent emotions Britney Spears: odd word choices, inconsistent emotions Howard K. Stern: inconsistent emotions, questionable facts Adam Saleh: inconsistent emotions Bobby Cutts: odd word choices, inappropriate voice inflection
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
I have a question that I wonder would be of interest to your website viewers. On this video clip, Hillary Clinton keeps make affirmative statements, but her head keeps shaking "no". The back and forth 'no' motion on her head seems to be opposite her words, and it is very distracting. I do not have any political judgments, so I am not being biased about Hillary. I just am perplexed. Her body language makes me feel very uneasy and mistrustful.
This interview with Senator Clinton is just after she won the New Hampshire primaries.
What Senator Clinton is doing here is what I would call a head swagger. It's actually her confidence that is causing this, and it is not what I would call a head shake no when she is saying something affirmative.
Read moreWhen people shake their head no when they say yes (a gesture, I believe), it is a quick, swift movement. It comes from the subconscious, and it is most alway brief. It doesn't languish on like this does, and furthermore, when conscious thoughts kick in, the person usually stops the "no" movement abruptly and switch to a "yes" motion. You can see the thoughts "kick-in" to conscious awareness. It quite fast, and fascinating to witness.
I bet if you were to ask Senator Clinton if she was aware that she was shaking her head in this interview, she would tell you she had no idea until she witnessed it firsthand by watching the video herself.
Here is another post on the head shake (sentence and link added 10/09).
Got a question about a candidates body language or facial expression?Ask me.
Note to Readers: (1) I do not endorse any candidate. I am merely trying to help people understand the candidates as best as I can. (2) I do not wish to get involved in the political debate. I merely wish to answer genuine and honest questions about body language, and facial expressions.(3) As long as I believe I can remain unbiased, I will continue to do so. (4) I do not moderate my comments, and I don't plan to, but if people decided to make my blog a political place to vent, I will start moderating until the elections are finished, or I will stop talking about politicians in general. (5) Respectful opinions are welcome, however, political bashing will not be tolerated.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
One blog I check out from time-to-time is Deception Blog. This blog's purpose is to "collate information about psychological research on deception, and the applications of this research." Yes, it is for the most part academic, but it is quite interesting nonetheless. If you haven't visited there, I highly recommend it.
It was a pleasure to see Deception Blog post a commentary on my post about TSA Behavior Detection Officers. It is always nice to get support of other people who study deception detection.
On that note, at the bottom of the post, you will see a link to a YouTube video where Dr. Paul Ekman talks about "Why We Lie". For those of you deception detection junkies, you will enjoy this video!
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Newsweek published an article online yesterday titled Smile...Or Else. It's about TSA employees who have been trained and will be stationed at airports to look for microexpressions in an attempt to thwart potential danger.
Patti Davis, the author, gives her opinion without taking the time to educate herself in the theory of microexpressions. Instead, she spouts off like an uneducated fool afraid of what she doesn't know. I would expect more from Newsweek magazine.
Read more Davis writes a brief description of microexpressions, but obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word "concealed" and how it applies to microexpressions:
In the study of “micro-expressions”—yes, it is actually a field of study and there are some who are arrogant enough to call it a science—it has been decided that when people wish to conceal emotions, the truth of their feelings is revealed in facial flashes. These experts have determined that fear and disgust are the key things to look for because they can hint of deception.
Davis seems to think that if you have a bad day and are not happy -- or perhaps are flying to a funeral for a family member, the Behavior Detection Officers are going to nab you.
...what about the woman who is getting on a plane to see a dying relative? Or the man who is traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist in a last bid for extending his life? What about the guy who just had a fight with his spouse and now worries that a plane crash would mean their last words were in anger? We’ve all had the experience of having a bad day, being in a rotten mood—especially at the airport, which has become a modern-day chamber or [sic] horrors. On those days, doesn’t it seem like everyone we meet looks sour and unpleasant?
Davis does not connect the dots that the people she just described have no reason to conceal emotions.
If a woman is getting on a plane to see a dying friend, she will likely feel sadness. She isn't going to try and act like this is the happiest day of her life now, is she? She has no reason to conceal anything.
Take as well the man who is traveling to another state to see a cancer specialist in a last bid to extend his life. He, too, will have genuine feelings of sadness and perhaps fear, but he also has no reason to conceal his feelings either. We can pretty much bet this man has only one thing on his mind: survival. He is not going to be role-playing some deceptive scheme.
As for the poor guy who had a fight with his wife before boarding the plane and is afraid of crashing, he isn't going to put on an act either. He will likely be silent in his thoughts and regrets, and those emotions, whether he is consciously aware of it or not, will be displayed on his face in a natural progressive order. He won't leak out expressions in micro-bursts that are inconsistent with what he is feeling, for Pete's sake.
These are not people who would tip off someone who can read and is properly trained in seeing microexpressions but Davis didn't do her homework.
All people feel and express emotions on their face pretty continuously during waking hours. That is normal and nothing that should set off a TSA officer. You should be able to smile, cry, pout, weep and even be afraid without worry that you are going to set off well-trained personnel.
Then what are these Behavior Detection Officers looking for? Do you really have something to worry about? It's not likely.
Someone who sees microexpressions will be looking for the guy who is showing inconsistencies in emotions, and behavior. For example, he will look for a guy who is acting jovial, yet strangely preoccupied and flashes an expression of disgust or fear across his face simultaneously.
I am happy to report the average person will not be this complex. They likely won't have the conflicting behaviors and emotions that cause microexpressions. It is only the guy who is trying to conceal his true feelings that will leak clues, unconsciously. Microexpressions are not voluntary behaviors.
It is the inconsistent micro-burst expressions lasting 1/25th of a second that should set off the TSA Behavior Detection Officers.
If I offered you the lottery to make a microexpression right now on demand, I can stand with 100% confident that you couldn't do it. It's not that simple, folks.
As with all things new and not understood, fear and anger are common defenses until the unknown becomes familiar, and the value of something new becomes recognized.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
The Mary Winkler case has gone to the jury today. While I haven't followed the court case because I've been busy with work, I did look for a video of Mary Winkler's testimony this morning.
You can see the video I saw by clicking on this link.
Move the video to time marker 6:55. Then watch Mary when she listens to the person questioning her. He says, "Did you intentionally, purposefully kill your husband?"
At time marker 7:01 -- watch Mary's expression.
What do you see?
* * *
My personal opinion: I don't believe Mary Winkler accidentally killed her husband.
When the man in the video says "Did you intentionally..." -- at the point he says the word "intentionally" - Mary Winkler grins the most eerie grin I have seen in a long, long time. It's bone-chilling! The grin lasts only for a split-second and disappears but that expression is very telling as to what Mary really believes...
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
When I looked at my hits this morning, I noticed something was up. I had 878 page loads yesterday, and 396 unique visitors -- about three to four times what is normal. And it is continuing on today.
What sparked the increased readership? My interest is piqued.
It appears there is a fascination with "microexpressions" in the Google search engine, and a few other search engines, and it is putting people here (on my blog).
I don't see any external links bringing people here so I can only assume there is a newspaper article, radio show or a television show in the last two days that discussed microexpressions.
If you are coming here for microexpressions -- clue me in on what generated such buzz. Of course, Paul Ekman, the guru of microexpressions is always fascinating.
What am I missing?
...
Perhaps Donny Deutsch featured Dr. Mark Frank yesterday on The Big Idea? Just a guess. Dr. Mark Frank, Dr. O'Sullivan and Dr. Ekman are colleagues.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
At first, I thought that my decision-making process and determination of a who was lying was all subconscious, because I called a liar within seconds to minutes. But after looking back and forcing myself to think out loud for over a year now, I've realized that there are processes that I use to detect a liar that I can consciously recollect. The processes are not set in stone like A, B, C, but rather they are random and only drawn upon when needed.
Regardless, I still process a lot of information within seconds, and I have no explanation for how I do it. I suspect it is due to my innate ability.
Most of the time, it takes me less than three minutes to determine if someone is lying when they are asked direct questions. Sometimes I can spot a liar in 20-30 seconds. However, there are times when it can take up to 10 minutes or longer.
The reason for the delay in making a call is that some liars don't lie right away, or worse, they are psychopaths. Psychopaths are the trickiest of people to read, because they are without emotion and without remorse. When someone doesn't feel remorse, nor display any emotions, I lose 50% of my clues. Furthermore, if a psychopath is highly intelligent, he won't mess up his facts, which makes it almost impossible for anyone to catch his falsehoods. It is the psychopaths who are highly intelligent who most often get away with the worst crimes.
According to Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan, who studies lie detection wizards, "There are two categories of clues to a lie: thinking clues and emotional ones." (Source: "Wizards" can spot the signs of a liar, AP, Oct. 14, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6249749/?GT1=5472).
To further elaborate on that, specific examples of emotional clues are facial expressions, body language and spoken words. In essence, is the person reacting normally to the circumstances? Are they truly happy? Are they truly upset? Are their facial expressions consistent with what they are saying? Are they shrugging their shoulders like they don't know when they are actually saying yes? Is their body language consistent with their words? Do their words match their emotions? Are their actions matching their projected emotion? Are their responses appropriate for how they are feeling? Do they convey how someone should feel in their situation?
While this process may sound simple, I believe it is rather complex, because to determine a liar, you must be able to answer these questions quickly, almost without thought. For most people, it is hard to spot such inconsistencies—even given the time—but for me, this process happens instantaneously. It's almost, if not, innate.
The second set of clues are thinking clues. Thinking clues are what liars give off when they are making up the truth or trying to tell you a story they "made up" in their head. More specific examples of thinking clues are hesitations in speech, stuttering, stammering for words, weird word order, or speaking incoherently by incorrectly choosing the wrong words or not completing sentences. Other times, liars will speed up or slow down their speech. Or a liar will confuse the facts, so when added all together, the facts won't add up. However, one or two clues alone are not enough to call a liar; it is the compilation of all the clues—emotional and thinking—that paints the broader picture of a lie.
Microexpressions are emotional clues that deserve a subtopic of its own. Microexpressions are flashes of emotions that come across the face of an individual who is lying. If someone is trying to conceal a strong emotion, it often leaks out in 1/25th of a second. This is known as a microexpression. Over ninety percent of people don't see these (more).
Furthermore, according to Dr. Ekman, a facial expression expert from the University of California at San Francisco, you can't mask your true feelings. When you are happy, you smile one way. When you are mad but pretending to be happy, the muscles you use to genuinely smile are not used and other ones are. Hence, when you wonder if you saw a fake smile, you probably did! In essence, you as a human do not have the power to activate your true happiness (smile) muscles unless you are truly happy. Wizards—scientifically proven human lie detectors—hone in on these falsehoods in expressions, according to Dr. O'Sullivan.
To me, Scott Peterson is famous, because I believe he was one of the first few microexpressionists I noted consciously. He tried to act sad and worried, yet he couldn't help but flash microexpressions of glee. His expressions of glee only lasted for a fraction of a second, and most people didn't even see them. Watch Scott Peterson's famous Barbara Walters interview: Perhaps you will be one of the few who can spot them.
I also find I use a personality catalog in my head or personality-matching technique when trying to spot a liar. I don't use it every time, and I don't know specifically why I use this technique—I just do. This technique involves matching personalities of people I've known in the past to people I am observing now.
For example, if I notice that you have traits of someone else I've known in the past, my mind will immediately match you up with that person. The person's face I have known in the past will just pop into my head without thought, and I will then consciously compare behaviors. If you are similar, you should act similarly. It's amazingly powerful, though I must state I believe there are hundreds of different personality types. I've come to call thisparalleling. Paralleling is something I don't do by choice, people just pop into my head from memory without thought.
People, while very different in many ways, typically have a set of standard reactions which are normal for their personality type. So, armed with that knowledge, knowing someone well, I can predict their behavior pretty accurately. This technique of personality matching gives me red flags immediately if things aren't adding up for this individual's personality type, and I quickly hone in to a deeper level of observation. I'd say I use this technique about 10–30% of the time.
I also look at personalities in general. Certain personalities are more likely to lie than others. If you come across as a braggart or an arrogant individual, I will quickly watch you for inconsistencies. If you are not able to laugh at yourself and you are defensive, I will look for cover-ups. If you are happy and yet willing to admit your downfalls, I will be less likely to spot anything.
It all comes down to the question: How down-to-earth are you? The more down-to-earth you are, the more likely you are to be honest. This technique allows me to hone in on the dishonesty much more quickly.
So far, to date, these are the skills or techniques that I use within seconds to minutes to quickly spot a liar.
* * * * * * * * Call for links, stories, articles where lie detection is needed. Do you know a story where you wonder what the truth is? If so, ask me. All that I need is a video clip with a headshot of the suspect talking, for preferably a few minutes.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
I've realized that when I am reading someone as to whether or not they are telling the truth, I quickly categorize them into one of three categories within seconds:
Positive Negative Neutral
Positive people are those who immediately convince me they are trustworthy. It's because their expressions are so genuine, or their actions, words or overall demeanor are very sincere. There is instantly no doubt about it: they are telling the truth. You just know they are being honest.
Most often, I don't even have to listen to what positive people are saying, because their facial expressions are a dead giveaway: They are overflowing with emotion. It's the sincere overflow of emotions that lead me to this conclusion.
Tom Cruise, with regard to the Katie Holmes engagement, is one person right now that comes to mind who is overflowing with genuine emotion. You can just watch his facial expressions and know that he is telling the truth, without even listening to what he has to say. Try lying and making those facial expressions with his enthusiasm: You can't do it, no matter how hard you try.
The opposite of positive is, of course, negative. Negative people do things that instantly tell me they are lying. From telling stories that don't make sense, to awkward speech patterns, to inappropriate facial expressions that contradict their story, to endless stuttering. They give instant clues that they are being deceptive. Most often, though not always, it is the emotions on their face that tell their story first.
The next type of person is a neutral person. These people are hardest to read, because these people don't express a lot of emotion. Neutral people tend to lack genuine enthusiasm, and most often come across as someone who is not excitable. They usually come across as mundane and monotone.
While the majority of people who fall into the neutral category are suspicious, it does not mean that they are lying. And that is where it gets tricky. Some people just lack normal expressive emotions and instead are subdued, even when they are telling the truth.
When I realize I have categorized someone in the neutral category, I really have to focus to get to the truth, and it doesn't always come quickly like it does with positive and negative people—it takes minutes rather than seconds (or even longer!). Listening to their story becomes imperative. With a rare few, sometimes I am not able to discern the truth, and I have to give it up until more information presents itself.
Neutral people who are liars are usually psychopaths.
What makes it even more tricky is that some psychopaths who are lying give off emotional indications that are supportive to their story,even though they are lying. You have to see this in action to understand it. They even make facial expressions that are consistent with what they are saying. It's twisted and hard to explain until you can experience it.
What usually gives away that a neutral person or a pathological person is lying is that the actual events of their situation aren't logical. These people stretch the truth, play on the "what-ifs" and the could-be-possible-odds too many times for reality to be present. When you add up all the usual bits to their story, the odds become one-in-a-million, or statistically very, very unlikely. That, combined with other subtle hints, all add up to give away a neutral or pathological liar.
Also, it is common for liars to dull their emotional responses and try to play neutral, but these liars are actually not true neutrals. I'll call them false neutrals. These people leak information differently than classic neutral liars: They flicker emotions and microexpressions, whereas the true neutral liar likely will not. One suspect that comes to mind who acts like this right now is Joran van der Sloot. Of course, I am not accusing him of lying. However, I just think his behavior is very suspicious.
A false neutral liar's speech may become unnaturally slow as if someone taped them and played it back in slow motion. It's rather odd, because when they speak the truth, their speech rate increases to normal or above, but when they lie, they suddenly slow their speech way down, or vice-versa. Again, a true neutral liar will not do this. He will be the same throughout the interview. He will not change or vary at all. He is highly controlled in his all of his responses, or flat out lacks emotions, which is notable.
Sadly, most people want to give others the benefit of the doubt, and that is how these neutral masters of deception get away with lying so frequently. That's how pathological people kill successfully! That is how serial killers get away with their crimes for so long. People don't add up the odds—they don't put the intricate piece of the puzzle together.
Neutral people who are lying are usually pathological liars, though not all pathological liars are neutral.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Last night, I was watching The Apprentice. My husband has become more addicted to the show than I am.
At the end of the show, after Stephanie was fired, Donald Trump said to Chris, a 21-year-old real estate guy from Las Vegas as he was leaving the room, that he is always having problems..."and that he better get going...FAST...or he'll miss his potential."
Chris was standing in the doorway about to exit the room when he stopped and listened to Mr. Trump. His upper lip lifted up for a hair of a second but he didn't show any teeth. It kind of quivered. I immediately sensed a very threatening feeling. My heart started to pound and I felt a real sense of danger. Chris then responded in a tense voice by saying thank you to Mr. Trump. It all happened in an instant.
I immediately asked my husband if he saw it. He said no. Thankfully, we had recorded it so I played it back in slow motion and pointed it out to my husband. He still struggled to see it but after a couple of playbacks he finally caught it with my guidance. The beauty of slow motion!
I knew this expression by Chris was an expression of deep anger at Mr. Trump. It was a rageful response. Chris was boiling inside as he has done on the show many times. Except this time, he was trying to be polite and hide it because he had just narrowly escaping being fired himself. Chris knew if he didn't hold it in - he'd be let go on the spot. Even still, he couldn't entirely contain his true emotions. They flickered for an instant. Expressions are a wealth of information! I suspect this what experts would call a microexpression.
Ironically, too, after Chris left the boardroom, I think Mr. Trump had a sense of this as well because he responded to George and Carolyn that this Chris guy is really volatile and needed to be closely monitored. I wonder if he subconsciously registered what I did.
I believe he did.
When I went to bed, I was thinking about this expression. I wanted to see if I could make it myself -- and I couldn't. I was flat puzzled as I continually tried to find the right muscles to move my upper lip. He moved his upper lip upwards, yet didn't show any teeth.
It was more like a twitch -- a twitch of rage!
How did I know it was even anger, I asked myself. I was puzzled. I didn't know this expression. I don't ever remember seeing it before. Chris didn't act angry at all with his verbal response or his body posture.
I asked my husband if he knew what that expression meant now that he saw it, and he was clueless. He didn't get any feelings from it at all.
I just knew -- instinctively-- that it was a rage of some sort: a very serious rage. Perhaps innately I knew. Perhaps I registered it subconsciously. As Malcolm Gladwell would say, it was a rapid form of cognition -- a form we don't know too much about consciously.
After trying to make the facial expressions, I realized I couldn't. More than likely because facial experts say we can't mimic real feelings. The muscles we use to act out fake emotions are voluntary and totally different than the ones we use in a genuine expression of emotion. Genuine expressions involve using muscles that are activated involuntary.
The closest I came to making Chris' expression was to flare my nostrils.
Try it. Flare your nostrils.
Does it make you feel a bit angry? Negative? Perhaps mad? Do you feel your heart race a bit?
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
A microexpression is a flash of emotion that tells what you are really feeling. For instance, if you ask someone how they are feeling and they reply they are doing great, when let's say they are dying inside, people who can see microexpressions will potentially see a flash of pain or fear or sadness, regardless of what this person is actually saying.
In essence, your face has a natural lie detector built right in, which may indicate that you are being deceptive. And guess what, no matter how hard you try, you can't fake it out or stop your true expressions from flashing themselves. They are involuntary.
Isn't that wild?
But it is important to know that not all situations cause people to flash microexpressions. It's just one piece of the detection puzzle.
Microexpressions may appear in the middle of a fake expression for an instant or a flash.
Even more interesting is that when you make a fake smile, you don't use the same muscles you use when you genuinely smile.Isn't that bizarre? The muscles you use for a fake smile are completely different. If I ask you to genuinely smile for me when you are not happy, guess what, you can't do it. The smile will not be the same.
I find that fascinating!!
Before I knew microexpressions existed, I never noticed them (consciously, I suspect). Then once I heard about them, I suddenly noticed them all the time, as if someone turned the lights on. I'll never forget the first one I was conscious about: I saw Scott Peterson flash an excited microexpression to Barbara Walters when she asked him a question. Instead of answering the question excitedly, he played the sad, downer-guy denying her the truth. It was clear as day what his true feelings were, and they didn't match what he had just said and the expressed emotion on his face. He couldn't hide them--just most people didn't see it.
I believe I have always seen microexpressions and registered them, but I wasn't consciously aware of them. I think for years, I have innately processed this information in my subconscious mind without ever being consciously aware of how I knew what I knew. I just knew it. (Finally, my world is making sense!!!)
In an odd twist, just because someone tells you microexpressions exist doesn't mean you will see them like I do. I think in real life only handful of people out of 100 actually see microexpressions without training. Most people are oblivious to them. It's not a common trait most people possess: the ability to see microexpressions.
When I saw the Scott Peterson microexpression, I asked my husband to see if he saw it. He missed it. Since that time, I have taped shows and I rewind them and repeatedly replay microexpressions to my husband and no matter what I do, he doesn't see them. For some people to see them, you must slow them down.
So, do you want to test your ability to work with and identify microexpressions?
I'll warn you: This test is difficult. I believe it was difficult because all other verbal clues and hints from the face and body are stripped away. You have to solely rely on the face to do this test -- and that is challenging. I am used to processing lots of clues and not just focusing in on one. Yet I think I scored 6 out of 10 on this test (I was too busy taking it and I didn't keep score but I think I remember missing 4).
Update 2-11-2008:
I would say the microexpressions that I see consciously assist me in deception detection about 8-10% of the time. I wonder if I register a lot more subconsciously.
Update 3-25-2008:
See a new poll taken by my readers. It asks them what they think are the biggest clues to deception for me. Here is whatI think are my biggest clues.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Have you heard of the Indiana woman who put her father's ghost up for auction on eBay because supposedly her son was convinced Grandpa was haunting the house? She hoped by selling his ghost (and the cane of her father), that her son would be convinced he left the house -- and he would no longer be afraid. This is a true story.
It intrigued me so I went to investigate it for myself. I found a video interview of the woman and her husband on MSNBC.com. I wanted to see what they had to say firsthand. I wanted to know if this woman was honest. The story could be plausible, in a clever effort to rid a child of fear. However, it could be a ploy for money.
After watching the video, I do not trust this woman. More than likely, this is a person who is out for financial gain. Regardless, I am going to view this with a clean slate and see what I find...
Review of the Video - Ghostly Sale: NBC's Ann Curry interviews Mary and her husband, Mickey Anderson. Below I recount spots in the video that make me question the people and their motives.
Watch when Mickey Anderson is asked by Ann Curry whose idea it was to put the ghost up for auction. Listen to how Mickey responds. He stutters by saying "um, and "ah" a lot. He also says "she" when he means "he". His answer doesn't roll off his tongue. He clearly struggles in his reply. When a story is genuine, you don't struggle. It flows naturally. I don't believe he is being honest here.
Watch his wife's response as he talks to Ann Curry about whose idea it was to list the auction. She is sitting there carefully listening to her husband's every word. She makes stressed faces as he talks. Why? Is she fearful he might not say the right things? Did she coach him on exactly what to say -- and she fears he may not say it exactly as he is supposed to? She nods her head in confirmation at other times concurring with what he is saying. Then when he finishes, she cracks a smile and looks relieved. Why? I think the answer is obvious: perhaps the answers were practiced?
(Let Mary's expressions guide you. They will guide you more appropriately than will her words... )
When Ann Curry asks Mary if she is scratching-her-head (figure of speech) because the auction (at that point) was sitting at FIVE THOUSAND (odd) dollars, listen to Mary's response. Ann Curry is in shock. Why doesn't Mary respond that she, too, is shocked (at the price)? Wouldn't you be if a non-material item on eBay was selling for thousands?
Wouldn't any normal person be shocked?
I speculate a person who is lying wouldn't be shocked. They'd suppress their feelings because they wouldn't want to let out a hint of excitement about their true motivation -- which would more than likely be monetary gain. An honest person would exude shock, like everyone else.
Mary says,"I figured who is going to want this? I figured we could get a penny out of it."
She says she could get a penny? Isn't that a weird response? Who would think about a penny? Again, Mary is downplaying this - downplaying her interest in monetary gains.
I suspect people would have one or two motives in this situation: to help their son (in a weird albeit abnormal funky mystic-kind-of-way) -- or to get their hands on money like the money made by the crazy woman who sold a grill cheese sandwich just a few weeks before!! Which motive is Mary thinking about?
Watch when Ann Curry says, "What are you going to do with the money?"
Mary blows air through her teeth and lips. That's a true, trustworthy expression of frustration. It truly indicates how she is really feeling. Her reply, "If it...It really depends on what it (the amount) goes up to now....We told him he is supposed to get all the money...but if it goes up from there... we are giving to charity, too." Mary fears Curry is honing in on her desires to take money -- and she is sick of it! She doesn't want to talk about it anymore.
Mary goes on to say that she has had tons of e-mail telling her what she should do with the money. Look closely, you see an expression of anger (a microexpression, I suspect)! She is mad about that. She doesn't want anyone to tell her what to do with her money but she tries to hide it. Where are her thoughts about her son & charity? Does she not have any? Her emotions are not consistent with what she is saying.
Ann Curry goes on to ask..."Have you thought about 'what if' this doesn't work? What if you sell the ghost and Collin still thinks the ghost is in the house? What are you going to do then?"
Look at how cocky Mary is when she replies so confidently, "I don't think that is going to be a problem (pause) because... I've been reading e-mails to him..." The pause between the word because and I've is interesting. She is thinking as she speaks.
A mother whose son is honestly afraid of ghosts knows that situations like this aren't that easily rectified. Mary's confidence doesn't add up to normal behavior.
Watch Mary's husband as she talks about how excited her son is about giving the ghost away. Why is her husband so somber? If his son was excited, wouldn't he be genuinely enthused as well? Would he be joyous? He's not. Why? Does he know things are less than honest, perhaps?
Another inconsistency from Mary in other news stories is that she says her son says Grandpa was "mean" yet she swears he was the nicest man you'd ever meet in her actual auction description. This shows Mary is inconsistent. Inconsistency points to less than honest behavior.
When people don't tell the truth, they just don't respond normally.
In the end, what is even more odd to me is why the son, Collin, isn't part of the interview. Why didn't they have him on with them? People might say that is because they want to protect the identity of their child -- but clearly that is not the case because they offered a photo of Collin in the video above. Were they afraid to have Collin speak? Children are usually brutally honest. Is Mary afraid of this?
In the end, I personally don't trust what this couple is saying.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
I am sure the face and story of Matthew Shepard are seared into the brains of most people. Young beautiful gay guy beaten, tied up and left for dead in Wyoming. The year was 1998. Matthew Shepard was a college student with a big bright future. That's the story most of us know...
However last night, I decided to watch a video tape recording of ABC's 20/20 from November 26th which had the first ever interview with the two convicted murderers: Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.
Since I am fascinated with lies, I was really interested to watch these two guys. However, they proved much harder to read than the average guy. They are polished. Plus other sources in the story added to the mix and confusion as they weren't trustworthy either.
Certainly these two young killers had years of practice at lying and deception as they were heavily involved in drugs scene, most specifically with meth. McKinney, the instigator of the killings, says he was strung out on meth for an entire week without sleep prior to the murder. He says he just wanted money and more drugs -- so when Shepard, drunk in a bar, asked for a ride home from him as they sat and talked that night -- McKinney says he saw an opportunity to rob Shepard. Henderson said he quickly realized the plan of action.
I believe them here. I believe the motivation for the crime initially was money for drugs.
McKinney continues to say the killing wasn't motivated by Shepard's sexual orientation. It was when he answered Elizabeth Vargas that I saw a expression (I suspect what experts would call a microexpression --an expression that flashes on someone's face for an instant -- which most people aren't privy too). He squinted his eyes with a deep sincere anger for a flit of an instant. It made his statement completely convincing. By this expression, you knew he was really pissed off by the fact people thought this was a hate crime when it was really just a case of drugs, money, robbery and murder. However, he didn't want people to see this emotion. He was trying to hide it.
As for Henderson, when Vargas asked if he had an prejudice against gays, he flat out lied. He paused, looked around and didn't have a good answer. He truly had problems with gay people but apparently he didn't beat Shepard. He just never stopped McKinney and helped save Shepard.
McKinney goes on to say that on the ride to Shepard's home, he had planned to pull a gun on Shepard to rob him but Shepard put his hand on his knee -- and that send him into a rage. He said he then just beat Shepard with a gun and continued to beat Shepard. He said it was a rage that once was started couldn't be stopped.
Meth is known to cause violent outburst for the most benign circumstance. I believe McKinney here. I have no doubts.
Several people spoke on 20/20 about McKinney. They said he was known to have sex in a threesome: two men and a woman. The mother of his child says today she believes he is bi-sexual because before all of this, he asked her to be part of a threesome with two guys. Another man, a limo driver named Copp, also spoke about stories he had supposedly heard about McKinney having sex in a threesome. When asked how he knew, Copp then switched his story and said he knew because he was one of the guys. Copp was lying. You could see it by the phony machismo face he made. It wasn't sincere at all.
The facts of this case are overwhelming. I don't believe McKinney hated gays. I believe him when he says this killing wasn't motivated by hate. Nor does anyone ever offer anything to the contrary -- that McKinney did talk about hating gays -- yet a simple gesture for sex is what started a violent outburst from McKinney and caused him to kill Shepard.
What a FINE LINE.
Another odd fact: McKinney says he didn't know Shepard prior to the killing -- yet multiple people spoke out on 20/20 stating that they did in fact see them together. However, none of the people speaking up were convincing. I don't believe they were lying but due to the fact they were all drug users, I don't trust their perception which leaves a gray area for me.
Was McKinney bisexual and keeping it a secret?
Did he know Shepard beforehand -- and perhaps had some secret encounters with him? Is that why when Shepard put his hand on McKinney's knee that night, McKinney flipped? Did McKinney flip because he knew Henderson hated gays and would never let him live it down??
It's all so intertwined and twisted! I do firmly believe:
McKinney didn't hate gays.
Henderson did.
McKinney intended to rob Shepard, Henderson just followed along.
McKinney didn't plan on killing Shepard but did in a rage.
McKinney was bi-sexual.
I wonder:
if McKinney knew Shepard beforehand. I suspect yes, he is lying but I am uncertain. McKinney is hard to read here.
if McKinney had secret sexual encounters with Shepard before (pure speculation).
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Disclaimer:
All data and information provided on this site is for
informational purposes only. Eyes for Lies Blog makes no representations as to
accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information
on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in
this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its
display or use. This is a blog and expresses opinions of the author. Just
because Eyes for Lies does not believe someone does not mean they are (a)
lying, or (b) a liar. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Eyes for Lies does not take
any responsibility for comments published by its readers. Readers publish comments at their own risk.
By reading this blog, you agree to the terms expressed
in this link.
Copyright
Notice 2004-2013
The content of this blog cannot in any way be reproduced, replicated, copied,
duplicated or performed in any manner without express written permission from
Eyes for Lies. You don't want to get caught in a lie, do you? Ask first.
