There are a few techniques around for deception detection that require you, the observer, to be more aware of what is going on. They’ll also make you feel good. So wake up! You’ve got to be in the moment and paying attention. It’s no good having micro-expression skills like Cal Lightman or the trickster skills of a fictional mentalist like Patrick Jane if your mind’s not on the job. Paul Ekman does it, the CIA does it, and Yogis like to do it too. There are several methods but all of them do one thing: They switch your brain off auto-pilot.
THE BASICS
Mindfulness meditation (an off-putting phrase that simply means sitting still for a few moments!):
Set a timer for 1, 5 or 10 minutes.
Sit down.
Focus your gaze on a point ahead of you (but don’t stare).
Pay attention to your breathing. Breathe into your belly rather than your chest.
Now let your inner-watcher take over. Your thoughts will come thick and fast, your feet will itch, a breeze will ruffle your hair. All of them shout “Look at me!”. Just let them come. Ignore them, but casually. Whenever your inner-watcher notices you paying attention to your thoughts and not your breathing simply redirect your thoughts back to your breathing. That’s it. You’ll be amazed at how much information your brain and body throws at you all clamoring for immediate attention. The more you refocus on your breathing the less these unbidden impulses will drive you and distract you [For a video introduction go here].
That is mindfulness. Sort of. It’ll teach you about yourself and show you how easily you can be distracted by nothing at all. For deception detection the Ekman group like you to practice on objects as per Jon Kabat Zinn’s methods. To do this after you have been meditating a while turn your focus to an object. It could be a door-knob while you’re sitting on the train in everyday life but for our practice do this: have something to hand like a raisin, a blueberry, a pencil, an eraser, anything in fact that’s small and easy to handle.
Hold it in your hand and take a minute for each of the senses:
Touch it, how does it feel?
Smell it. Distinguish between the inside and outside, the pith and the skin of the blueberry, the lead and the wood of the pencil.
Look at it – pick out the different shades, colors, patterns, reflections.
Listen to it. Yes, really, give it a listen. What can you hear? Does the object block sound, reflect sound. Does it make any noise?
Taste it.
This will teach you how to focus your attention minus the chatter of your brain and senses. A very useful skill for all walks of life but especially for detecting unusual behaviors in others. The Ekman group focus on multiple channels and often assign different channels for different observers to monitor. The CIA technique refers to “L-Squared mode” where you focus on the audio and visual channels at the same time:
You ask your question, and you go immediately into L-squared mode, looking and listening for a cluster of two or more deceptive behaviors. Remember, the first deceptive behavior has to appear within five seconds of the stimulus. The cluster is comprised of that first behavior, be it verbal or nonverbal, and all verbal and nonverbal behaviors that follow it until the stream is broken by another stimulus or identifiable interruption. How long can the stream continue?
These guys have noticed that it is hard to maintain a constant state of vigilance and always be fully switched on. The mindfulness techniques above should help you do that. Although I have observed the mindfulness-only types can get stuck in the buzz of being ‘switched on’ rather than actually paying attention.
ADVANCED (but simple) TECHNIQUES
The Spy Technique
If I had to send you into the next room with absolutely zero training at all I would use an observation technique I found in an old WWII spy manual. It’s for improving your observation skills in an instant. As with anything the more you practice the better you’ll become:
Acquired Powers of Observation
Powers of observation are lying dormant in everyone of us and can be revived by practice.
There are various methods of improving one’s power of observation according to the type of memory which one may possess.
E.g. some people have a photographic memory; other people can remember better by sound and others by numbers. The following method is recommended as being suited to all types of memories.
4. Our method.
a) Things.
Take the things that please you – your eyes, touch, smell and hearing. Try and express in words why they please you. Such an effort will cause you to observe the object more closely.
Take the things that you dislike and repeat the process.
Take the things that are neutral to you and repeat the process asking yourself why you have no particular feeling towards them.
b) Human beings.
Apply the same three processes to the general appearance and voice of the person observed.
Study the person’s actions, asking yourself the reason for such actions.
You will have observed by now a lot about a person. Try and judge his character.
5. Conclusion.
This method requires a conscious effort to begin with and systematic practice. It is, however, interesting and has the following results:
You will obtain a greater knowledge of the people in your area.
You will have obtained a greater knowledge of objects round about you.
You will be able to notice the presence of strangers, the absence of people you know, and anything unusual which might previously have escaped you.
I’m all about the science of shortcuts you see (more on this in the future) and for observation skills to be useful they have to be trained and accessible regardless of whether you take a counter-culture or Bourne Identity type approach. You could also try the positive observation technique.
The Gratitude Attitude
This comes from cognitive therapy and is designed to make you feel more positive about the world. Each day take five different things and say thank you for them. It really does work by making you look at under-appreciated things in new ways. For our observation practice you can apply it to people, things or verbalizations for example.
Here’s another technique from my acting classes.
The Improv Technique
First, spend three minutes going round the room pointing and listing items that you see. Simple right?
Now do the same but say out loud the previous item that you pointed at. So: item 1: visual = chair, verbal = “…”. Item 2: visual = door, verbal = “Chair!” and so on. This really makes your brain work and is very effective.
The Writer Technique
You can even invent your own techniques for switching your attention. As a writer I have to put myself in characters heads and imagine what they might be thinking and feeling. Sit down somewhere and imagine you are in fact an astronaut in deep sleep, you’ve just realized that the fantasy you’re living in is an entertainment construct. Try and see the reality behind and how that makes the astronaut feel.
Invent or re-use any scenario that works for you. Neo in the Matrix perhaps? Alice in Wonderland?
CONCLUSION
Remember all these techniques are about switching your attention off auto-pilot. Try all of them and see what works for you, then focus on one technique for three weeks for a few minutes each day. Share your results in the comments below.
ESSAY, FOR DISCUSSION, READ AT A MEETING OF THE HISTORICAL AND ANTIQUARIAN CLUB OF HARTFORD, AND OFFERED FOR THE THIRTY-DOLLAR PRIZE.*
* Did not take the prize.
Observe, I do not mean to suggest that the custom of lying has suffered any decay or interruption—no, for the Lie, as a Virtue, A Principle, is eternal; the Lie, as a recreation, a solace, a refuge in time of need, the fourth Grace, the tenth Muse, man’s best and surest friend, is immortal, and cannot perish from the earth while this club remains. My complaint simply concerns the decay of the art of lying. No high-minded man, no man of right feeling, can contemplate the lumbering and slovenly lying of the present day without grieving to see a noble art so prostituted. In this veteran presence I naturally enter upon this theme with diffidence; it is like an old maid trying to teach nursery matters to the mothers in Israel. It would not become to me to criticise you, gentlemen—who are nearly all my elders—and my superiors, in this thing—if I should here and there seem to do it, I trust it will in most cases be more in a spirit of admiration than fault-finding; indeed if this finest of the fine arts had everywhere received the attention, the encouragement, and conscientious practice and development which this club has devoted to it, I should not need to utter this lament, or shred a single tear. I do not say this to flatter: I say it in a spirit of just and appreciative recognition. [It had been my intention, at this point, to mention names and to give illustrative specimens, but indications observable about me admonished me to beware of the particulars and confine myself to generalities.]
No fact is more firmly established than that lying is a necessity of our circumstances—the deduction that it is then a Virtue goes without saying. No virtue can reach its highest usefulness without careful and diligent cultivation—therefore, it goes without saying that this one ought to be taught in the public schools—even in the newspapers. What chance has the ignorant uncultivated liar against the educated expert? What chance have I against Mr. Per—against a lawyer? Judicious lying is what the world needs. I sometimes think it were even better and safer not to lie at all than to lie injudiciously. An awkward, unscientific lie is often as ineffectual as the truth.
Now let us see what the philosophers say. Note that venerable proverb: Children and fools always speak the truth. The deduction is plain —adults and wise persons never speak it. Parkman, the historian, says, “The principle of truth may itself be carried into an absurdity.” In another place in the same chapters he says, “The saying is old that truth should not be spoken at all times; and those whom a sick conscience worries into habitual violation of the maxim are imbeciles and nuisances.” It is strong language, but true. None of us could live with an habitual truth-teller; but thank goodness none of us has to. An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who think they never lie, but it is not so—and this ignorance is one of the very things that shame our so-called civilization. Everybody lies—every day; every hour; awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey deception—and purposely. Even in sermons—but that is a platitude.
In a far country where I once lived the ladies used to go around paying calls, under the humane and kindly pretence of wanting to see each other; and when they returned home, they would cry out with a glad voice, saying, “We made sixteen calls and found fourteen of them out” —not meaning that they found out anything important against the fourteen—no, that was only a colloquial phrase to signify that they were not at home—and their manner of saying it expressed their lively satisfaction in that fact. Now their pretence of wanting to see the fourteen—and the other two whom they had been less lucky with—was that commonest and mildest form of lying which is sufficiently described as a deflection from the truth. Is it justifiable? Most certainly. It is beautiful, it is noble; for its object is, not to reap profit, but to convey a pleasure to the sixteen. The iron-souled truth-monger would plainly manifest, or even utter the fact that he didn’t want to see those people—and he would be an ass, and inflict totally unnecessary pain. And next, those ladies in that far country—but never mind, they had a thousand pleasant ways of lying, that grew out of gentle impulses, and were a credit to their intelligence and an honor to their hearts. Let the particulars go.
The men in that far country were liars, every one. Their mere howdy-do was a lie, because they didn’t care how you did, except they were undertakers. To the ordinary inquirer you lied in return; for you made no conscientious diagnostic of your case, but answered at random, and usually missed it considerably. You lied to the undertaker, and said your health was failing—a wholly commendable lie, since it cost you nothing and pleased the other man. If a stranger called and interrupted you, you said with your hearty tongue, “I’m glad to see you,” and said with your heartier soul, “I wish you were with the cannibals and it was dinner-time.” When he went, you said regretfully, “Must you go?” and followed it with a “Call again;” but you did no harm, for you did not deceive anybody nor inflict any hurt, whereas the truth would have made you both unhappy.
I think that all this courteous lying is a sweet and loving art, and should be cultivated. The highest perfection of politeness is only a beautiful edifice, built, from the base to the dome, of graceful and gilded forms of charitable and unselfish lying.
What I bemoan is the growing prevalence of the brutal truth. Let us do what we can to eradicate it. An injurious truth has no merit over an injurious lie. Neither should ever be uttered. The man who speaks an injurious truth lest his soul be not saved if he do otherwise, should reflect that that sort of a soul is not strictly worth saving. The man who tells a lie to help a poor devil out of trouble, is one of whom the angels doubtless say, “Lo, here is an heroic soul who casts his own welfare in jeopardy to succor his neighbor’s; let us exalt this magnanimous liar.”
An injurious lie is an uncommendable thing; and so, also, and in the same degree, is an injurious truth—a fact that is recognized by the law of libel.
Among other common lies, we have the silent lie—the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all. In that far country where I once lived, there was a lovely spirit, a lady whose impulses were always high and pure, and whose character answered to them. One day I was there at dinner, and remarked, in a general way, that we are all liars. She was amazed, and said, “Not all?” It was before “Pinafore’s” time so I did not make the response which would naturally follow in our day, but frankly said, “Yes, all—we are all liars. There are no exceptions.” She looked almost offended, “Why, do you include me?” “Certainly,” I said. “I think you even rank as an expert.” She said “Sh-‘sh! the children!” So the subject was changed in deference to the children’s presence, and we went on talking about other things. But as soon as the young people were out of the way, the lady came warmly back to the matter and said, “I have made a rule of my life to never tell a lie; and I have never departed from it in a single instance.” I said, “I don’t mean the least harm or disrespect, but really you have been lying like smoke ever since I’ve been sitting here. It has caused me a good deal of pain, because I’m not used to it.” She required of me an instance—just a single instance. So I said—
“Well, here is the unfilled duplicate of the blank, which the Oakland hospital people sent to you by the hand of the sick-nurse when she came here to nurse your little nephew through his dangerous illness. This blank asks all manners of questions as to the conduct of that sick-nurse: ‘Did she ever sleep on her watch? Did she ever forget to give the medicine?’ and so forth and so on. You are warned to be very careful and explicit in your answers, for the welfare of the service requires that the nurses be promptly fined or otherwise punished for derelictions. You told me you were perfectly delighted with this nurse —that she had a thousand perfections and only one fault: you found you never could depend on her wrapping Johnny up half sufficiently while he waited in a chilly chair for her to rearrange the warm bed. You filled up the duplicate of this paper, and sent it back to the hospital by the hand of the nurse. How did you answer this question—’Was the nurse at any time guilty of a negligence which was likely to result in the patient’s taking cold?’ Come—everything is decided by a bet here in California: ten dollars to ten cents you lied when you answered that question.” She said, “I didn’t; I left it blank!” “Just so—you have told a silent lie; you have left it to be inferred that you had no fault to find in that matter.” She said, “Oh, was that a lie? And how could I mention her one single fault, and she is so good?—It would have been cruel.” I said, “One ought always to lie, when one can do good by it; your impulse was right, but your judgment was crude; this comes of unintelligent practice. Now observe the results of this inexpert deflection of yours. You know Mr. Jones’s Willie is lying very low with scarlet-fever; well, your recommendation was so enthusiastic that that girl is there nursing him, and the worn-out family have all been trustingly sound asleep for the last fourteen hours, leaving their darling with full confidence in those fatal hands, because you, like young George Washington, have a reputa—However, if you are not going to have anything to do, I will come around to-morrow and we’ll attend the funeral together, for, of course, you’ll naturally feel a peculiar interest in Willie’s case—as personal a one, in fact, as the undertaker.”
But that was not all lost. Before I was half-way through she was in a carriage and making thirty miles an hour toward the Jones mansion to save what was left of Willie and tell all she knew about the deadly nurse. All of which was unnecessary, as Willie wasn’t sick; I had been lying myself. But that same day, all the same, she sent a line to the hospital which filled up the neglected blank, and stated the facts, too, in the squarest possible manner.
Now, you see, this lady’s fault was not in lying, but in lying injudiciously. She should have told the truth, there, and made it up to the nurse with a fraudulent compliment further along in the paper. She could have said, “In one respect this sick-nurse is perfection—when she is on the watch, she never snores.” Almost any little pleasant lie would have taken the sting out of that troublesome but necessary expression of the truth.
Lying is universal—we all do it. Therefore, the wise thing is for us diligently to train ourselves to lie thoughtfully, judiciously; to lie with a good object, and not an evil one; to lie for others’ advantage, and not our own; to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully, maliciously; to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily; to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously, with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling. Then shall we be rid of the rank and pestilent truth that is rotting the land; then shall we be great and good and beautiful, and worthy dwellers in a world where even benign Nature habitually lies, except when she promises execrable weather. Then—But am I but a new and feeble student in this gracious art; I cannot instruct this club.
Joking aside, I think there is much need of wise examination into what sorts of lies are best and wholesomest to be indulged, seeing we must all lie and we do all lie, and what sorts it may be best to avoid—and this is a thing which I feel I can confidently put into the hands of this experienced Club—a ripe body, who may be termed, in this regard, and without undue flattery, Old Masters.
In my ongoing microexpressions and Forensic Emotional Awareness training, as per the hit show Lie to Me, I came across this fleeting microexpression from Tony Blair during the Leveson Enquiry in the first second of this video (hint: you can click the image for a bigger size).
00.01 I didn't concede on policy at all
This one-sided smile is a clear sign of contempt mixed with pleasure. Contempt can, after all, be pleasurable. But is Mr Blair lying here? Difficult to say as we can’t say for certain what he is expressing contempt for, long-forgotten battles, the question, himself or the interrogator perhaps?
What is certain is that many politicians, at all levels, are adept at manipulating the truth, often for political reasons, sometimes because of hidden motives and sometimes just to hide their expenses. So, over the next few weeks I’m going to up my game and dissect the Leveson enquiry and participants, many of whom are adept manipulators of public opinion.
That’s a writer’s way of saying professional liars. Do forgive me.
Tony Blair, for example is a well polished performer. His famously stilting speech patterns, which were a form of controlling what gets processed by the listener’s brain, are curiously absent here. I’ll cover how that speech pattern works in another post. But, just watch the next two minutes of video below and you’ll see a range of mixed emotions, and then we find this little gem after the protestor breaks in to make his claims.
Mr Blair tries to defend himself. First, he says: “I’ve never had a discussion with them (JP Morgan) about that (the bribery accusations).”
Then just after 02.20 we see the following unconscious smile start as he says: “Or any relationship between them and Irag…” And by the time he’s finished this sentence, he’s turned away to hide the smile and what appears to be a momentary cheek flush. Here it is in four frames grabbed in quick succession.
02.21 No smile baseline
02.22-3 Smile begins
02.23-4-The turn away
02.24 back in control post blush
So, is Mr Blair lying here? Again context is everything, he could just be embarrassed at feeling he needs to answer a protestor’s accusations, or he could be hiding something after all.
Then just before Leveson says, “You’re entitled to say what you want,” there’s this little flash of anger:
02.28 You're entitled to say what you want
Note the rolled in lips, a tell-tale sign of anger, and what Dr Paul Ekman calls a very “reliable muscle” as it’s hard to do consciously. But anger at what? Initially my politician-sceptical bias made me think it was Blair reacting to Leveson’s interruption and taking offence. But is that my bias, what was really happening, or something else? I’ll be taking a masterclass on this later in the year with Ekman International and hopefully after that I’ll have a clear structure for getting to the heart of it.
There’s also a possible mix of surprise in this last frame, note the raised brows and the jaw drop (mouth closed).
You can watch the full video below or check out the press release from the original YouTube video-poster on Blair’s relationship with JP Morgan.
The science of emotional awareness and Lie to Me is starting to become second nature. The other night I was watching an old episode of The Actors Studio with Robert Downey Jr (a quality actor). He was being quizzed by James Lipton on his court cases and time in jail. I was busy establishing RDJ’s baseline when something struck me. I could recognize some of the microexpressions that were appearing on his face unbidden as Lipton asked him questions about this painful time.
At around minute 19, when talking about prison, Robert Downey Jr’s first microexpression is anger at the judge’s harsh sentence:
RDJ’s second microexpression is sadness at remembering his time in prison (with a hint of fear perhaps?).
Then on reflection a few moments later this third microexpression which doesn’t fit into the microexpression definitions exactly still tells us a lot.
Paul Ekman’s book Emotions Revealed tells me it’s more of a subtle expression of worry, a mix of expressions. It’s so brief, it took me several goes to catch the frame on youtube. So does this all mean that Robert Downey Jr was lying to James Lipton in this interview? In this case, not at all, it simply reflected his internal emotions about the subject. The angry expression is particularly revealing as he doesn’t say explicitly how he felt about the subject. But is he angry at the judge or the sentence?
My notes tell me that RDJ’s baseline at that moment was: “He has one eyebrow, his right, lower than the other. Looks around suspiciously at the audience half the time and has a tongue tick.” not complete by any measure.
Baselines, subtle expressions and the seven microexpressions are all subjects I’ll be covering in future posts. For now, it’s rewarding to see how these real-life Lie to Me skills are becoming a part of me.
You can watch the full interview below, this segment starts at around 19 minutes.
This video from Penn & Teller’s awesome Bullshit series in the US takes the kids toy that is the lie detector test to task. And all it takes is a clenched muscle to fool it. The sphincter muscle to be precise. No joke!
Penn & Teller, as you’d expect, send up the tests in their own inimitable style. You’ve got to love all the names they come with for the tester-in-chief, it’s like watching Dr Cox tease Dorian in Scrubs. It’s a good reminder that when you’re studying deception of any kind you should be on the lookout for people trying to con money out of you, just like any other skill. That’s why I’ve opted for Dr Ekman’s work, he has validated his work in both clinical and real-world settings.
Watch, laugh, and learn.
Test Yourself
If you fancy taking a little practice first you can buy one from the kids section on Amazon. Just click the image below:
Recent Comments