Has anyone here seen Lie to Me? And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the panel show. That's called Would I Lie To You. No, I'm talking about the crime drama about a scientist who can work out if people are lying, and what emotion they're feeling just by looking at them. That show got me really into behavioural psychology, and I used to be really got at it (being able to tell if people are lying) but I've lost my touch now. I must keep working on that, because it's a very useful skill to have.

I would really like to be like, say, Sherlock or Patrick Jane (from The Mentalist) but what they do isn't anything remotely resembling an exact science. To be fair, behavioural psychology isn't an exact science either, but it's fairly close. So that's something that you can actually learn, as you would any other subject. But as far as I'm aware, there's no way of learning to be Sherlock. You literally just have to be very clever and intelligent and extremely good at working things out.

However, saying that, I have thought of a few ways that I could get good at working things out. To work out things about people from physical details, logically, you could choose someone who you do actually know all about and take note of certain characteristics about them, such as their clothes. Therefore, if you did that with enough people, you should eventually be able to get a pretty accurate idea of which physical details go along with which facts about someone.

For example, if I take note of some details about my own house, and I know why things are the way they are, then it may be the case that if those same details are present in someone else's house, the reasons are also the same. Of course, you would need to get a large sample before you can start generalising. But still, I think that could work. That's the only way I can think of to actually ‘learn’ to be like Sherlock. Does anyone have any other suggestions?

So, I will work on that, as well as practising my lie detection skills.

It's funny, because despite Sherlock's veneration of deductive reasoning, what he actually uses is inductive reasoning – that is, building up an accurate model based on individual points (generalizing instances).

The weakness of such a model is, of course, that it is based only upon what you have observed and often you are missing factors completely. For instance, much of physics is based, by necessity, on creating models based off of observations and the result was a model that, for years, thought things fell to the earth simply because it was their “nature”.

I haven't seen any Sherlock movies or episodes, but I've often thought that some of his logical “deductions” in his literary adventures seemed rather far fetched. Mud on somebody's shoes, being late to a party, a scratch, etc. all seem inconspicuous enough, and of course it his reasoning based off of these things that don't seem important that make his stories so gripping. But I have personally doubted that one could find scenarios in real life in which these inconspicuous details are anything more than just that: inconspicuous.

You are absolutely right that by increasing your sample can you build a more accurate model of what details support which phenomena, but I have my doubts that any amount of such “training” would lead to entirely relevant deductions, however accurate.

Yes, I've heard that before. Though I've known it as deductive reasoning for too long to call it anything else.

I haven't read much of the books (I've only read the beginning of A Study in Scarlet), but I'm a massive fan of the BBC TV show. And, though some of his deductions do seem to be a stretch, most of them seem very logical to me. And it's worth mentioning that actually, Sherlock Holmes was based on a real person: Joseph Bell. From Wikipedia: “Bell emphasized the importance of close observation in making a diagnosis. To illustrate this, he would often pick a stranger and, by observing him, deduce his occupation and recent activities. These skills caused him to be considered a pioneer in forensic science (forensic pathology in particular) at a time when science was not yet widely used in criminal investigations.”

Sometimes when I am bored I'll try to deduce things about people

Also I have a knack of telling when someone is lying, even though I don't know why

Howcast has a short video for this.

Apollo Robbins (from Brain Games) can figure out what card a person is holding by detecting lies. He asks the person an obvious question such as “Do you have clothes on?” and has the person reply with a lie, saying “No.” He watches their face to see what their “lying face” is so he can tell when they're lying.

this has more to do with sherlock and the guy who wrote it, but I remember the guy who wrote the books, sir arthur conan doyle, actually believed in fairies and the occult (which was popular back then and was called spiritualism), and fell for the cottingley fairies, which turned out to be from cardboard cutouts in a book. the best part is probably that the fairies actually came from a book that had one of his stories published in it. also, he had a feud with harry houdini because houdini was skeptical of spiritualism and doyle's séances.

mitchboy wrote:

Howcast has a short video for this.

Apollo Robbins (from Brain Games) can figure out what card a person is holding by detecting lies. He asks the person an obvious question such as “Do you have clothes on?” and has the person reply with a lie, saying “No.” He watches their face to see what their “lying face” is so he can tell when they're lying.

Unfortunately, that video is wildly inaccurate. A lot of the statements it makes are nothing more than common myths. For example, the idea that people make less eye contact when lying isn't true. On the contrary, people tend to make more eye contact after you ask them a question if they're lying. Likewise, the video had it the wrong way around concerning details. People who are making things up tend to be much less specific than people who are telling the truth, not more, as that video stated. And most of the other statements merely apply when someone is feeling uncomfortable, or is trying to fake their emotions. It must be noted that faking your emotions is not the same as lying. Someone could be faking a smile to seem polite, but that doesn't mean they're lying to you about what they're saying.

However, it made some good points too. If no one says anything, a liar will be more compelled to fill the silence, as the video stated.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of supposed ways to spot a liar that you find on the Internet are wrong. That's why I only take my information from Paul Ekman, the world's leading expert on the subject. I understand you'll want some sources for my statements, and I'll provide you with them tomorrow. At the moment, however, I'm on my iPad and can't get to the site.

Here are several entries in a blog written by Paul Ekman. It's a commentary of a show called Lie to Me, which is loosely based on him and his organisation. His blog explains what science parts of the show are true or not.

This first one is a pdf, so I assume it will download (it doesn't on my computer, but I think that's because I have a special plugin). But I can assure you it's safe. http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Episode-1-Pilot.pdf Scroll down to the second page and look under the heading ‘Looking While Lying’. Here's the relevant quote (which is at the end of that section): "Lightman correctly said that breaking eye contact doesn’t prove lying; that is a myth.“ Another relevant quote (this time from the beginning of that section): ”Lightman is right that people often look away when they are trying to remember something." Try it for yourself. Ask someone a question. More often than not, they'll look away before answering. It's the natural reaction. But, if they're lying, they tend not to.

For the point about details (this isn't a download, nor are any of the following links): http://www.paulekman.com/lie-to-me/season-3/season-3-episode-3-dirty-loyal/ Read the section under the heading ‘Details, details.’ Specifically, the second sentence. "The details could be unnecessary, but sometimes such details are a sign of the person being truthful, not lying." As another thing to back up my claim that honest people include lots of unnecessary details, there was a documentary a couple of years ago about the reliability of eyewitness accounts. That was the focus of the documentary, but while they were interviewing the witnesses about the crime, the police discussed the fact that witnesses tend to ramble on about frankly irrelevant things, mentioning all sorts of random details, and sometimes this goes on for hours, but the interviewer can't interrupt them and tell them to stay focused on the crime because that might mess up their flow of memory.

Also, I think this is worth mentioning: http://www.paulekman.com/lie-to-me/lie-to-me-season-2/season-2-episode-13-the-whole-truth/ Notice the first section. "Foster tells Vic to fold his hands to avoid fidgeting. Good advice because people respond to fidgeting as a sign of lying. It isn't; it is just a sign of nervousness or discomfort, often shown by innocent people who are under suspicion." The same principle (something being a sign of nervousness rather than a sign of lying) applies to several of the points made in the video, which is unfortunately a very common mistake.

Here is another interesting point: http://www.paulekman.com/lie-to-me/lie-to-me-season-2/season-2-episode-21-darkness-and-light/ The first section, again: "While Foster says Lacey's arm-folding is a sign of defensiveness, and some clinicians do make this claim, I don't know of reliable scientific evidence to support this interpretation. Maybe… maybe not." Considering it's very often stated that arm-folding is a sign of defensiveness, I thought that was worth pointing out.

Wow, I used to watch that TV show when it was still airing here.

Awesomesauce!

Mewly wrote:

Wow, I used to watch that TV show when it was still airing here.

Awesomesauce!

Me too! If you're particularly interested in the science of it, then you'll really like Paul Ekman's blog. Here's a link: http://www.paulekman.com/lie-to-me2/ You can choose almost any episode out of all three seasons and read his comments on how accurate the science was. It's very useful.

calebxy wrote:

Here are several entries in a blog written by Paul Ekman. It's a commentary of a show called Lie to Me, which is loosely based on him and his organisation. His blog explains what science parts of the show are true or not.

[snip]

I agree with all of this.

Also, if someone is faking a smile, you can tell by looking at the area to the outside of their eyes. If there is crinkles near their eyes, then it's probably a genuine smile. If not, it's fake. I learned this from Brain Games.

EDIT: Look here to test your skills and learn more on fake smiles (with info provided by Paul Ekman, coincidentally).

luiysia wrote:

this has more to do with sherlock and the guy who wrote it, but I remember the guy who wrote the books, sir arthur conan doyle, actually believed in fairies and the occult (which was popular back then and was called spiritualism), and fell for the cottingley fairies, which turned out to be from cardboard cutouts in a book. the best part is probably that the fairies actually came from a book that had one of his stories published in it. also, he had a feud with harry houdini because houdini was skeptical of spiritualism and doyle's séances.

cool - that's really interesting - I never knew that!

mitchboy wrote:

calebxy wrote:

Here are several entries in a blog written by Paul Ekman. It's a commentary of a show called Lie to Me, which is loosely based on him and his organisation. His blog explains what science parts of the show are true or not.

[snip]

I agree with all of this.

Also, if someone is faking a smile, you can tell by looking at the area to the outside of their eyes. If there is crinkles near their eyes, then it's probably a genuine smile. If not, it's fake. I learned this from Brain Games.

EDIT: Look here to test your skills and learn more on fake smiles (with info provided by Paul Ekman, coincidentally).

That's a really cool test! I had never seen that before. Thank you very much!

I got 19 out of 20!

In one episode of Lie to Me, they're interviewing some fire-fighters (individually). But each one answers their questions in under a second. The characters on the show state that this is a sign of deception, because it means they've prepared their story beforehand, rather than actually remembering it, which should take longer than a second. Unfortunately, for some reason, this episode isn't included in Paul Ekman's blog. He seems to have skipped several episodes of season one. And that means that I don't know how accurate that statement was.

However, it makes sense to me. But just because they've prepared their answer doesn't necessarily mean that they're lying. An innocent person might have prepared their answer as well. However, in some circumstances you could comfortably rule that out.

So, I'm going to perform a psychological experiment on my friends and family. I'm going to write out some questions (such as, what time did you wake up this morning, what did you have for breakfast, etc.). I'm going to divide the group of participants into 4 groups. The first group will have to tell the truth, the second group will have to lie, but they'll have to make up their answers on the spot, and the last two groups will be given the questions and told to prepare their answers. But one of those two groups has to lie, and the other has to tell the truth. Each participant will be taken into a room and someone (who isn't me) will read the questions to them. I will be sitting to the side, just observing the person's behaviour. The person reading the questions won't know beforehand who's been told to do what, but I will, of course.

This experiment will allow me to do three things. Firstly, it will allow to me test the claim that someone who has prepared their answer replies quicker than someone who hasn't. Secondly, it will allow me to see if there's any difference in behaviour between an honest person with a prepared answer and a dishonest person with a prepared answer. Lastly, it will allow me to obverse the difference in eye movement between the 4 groups.

bump

I conducted that psychology experiment yesterday. The results are, as yet, inconclusive. It will take longer than expected to examine the footage thoroughly and take note of how quick the responses were and the eye movement. However, the results were exactly as I had predicted when questioning the youngest participant - a 9 year old boy. He maintained eye contact a lot, and answered very quickly, as I had expected from someone who prepared lies. But I'll have to examine the footage of the other participants more thoroughly to come to any conclusions. I'll inform you of the results in one or two days, probably.

bump

Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about my experiment.

Well, as an update, I've finished analysing the three participants who were lying, but I still have to analyse the three who were telling the truth. I'll see if I can get that done soon.

calebxy wrote:

Thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about my experiment.

Well, as an update, I've finished analysing the three participants who were lying, but I still have to analyse the three who were telling the truth. I'll see if I can get that done soon.

I am myself a good Sherlock.
If you have any problems you can come to here, my forum on being a Sherlock.

mythbusteranimator wrote:

Sometimes when I am bored I'll try to deduce things about people

Also I have a knack of telling when someone is lying, even though I don't know why

Cool, I do the same, in fact I have started a detective agency on Scratch, you have to be of a high level at the art, or I could teach you but do you want to join.