How to spot a liar

"Sorry, my phone died." "It is absolutely nothing. "Everything is fine." "These allegations are completely unfounded." "The company was not aware of any wrongdoing." "I love you." Ten to two hundred lies are uttered daily, and throughout history, inventors have devised a variety of methods to identify them, including 400-pound electroencephalograms, voice-stress analyzers, eye trackers, infrared brain scanners, and polygraphs (as well as voice-pressure and breathing monitors).

However, while these tools have proven effective in specific situations, the majority can be deceived with sufficient forethought, and none are deemed trustworthy enough to be admitted into a court of law. However, what if the issue lies not in the methods employed, but rather in the fundamental premise that deception induces physiological alterations? What if we adopted a more direct strategy and analyzed the falsehoods themselves using communication science?

We lie, in part, to improve our psychological self-perception by associating our delusions with the idealized version of ourselves rather than the reality that we actually are. However, during the time that our brain is preoccupied with fantasizing, it is oblivious to numerous signals. The conscious mind exerts control over a mere 5% of our cognitive processes, which includes communication. The remaining 95% transpires without our knowledge.

Narratives derived from imagined experiences differ significantly in quality from those based on actual experiences, according to the literature on reality monitoring. This indicates that fabricating a narrative concerning a personal subject requires effort and produces a distinct linguistic pattern. Linguistic text analysis, a technological advancement, has facilitated the identification of four prevalent patterns within the covert language of deceit. Liars make fewer references to themselves when expressing falsehoods. They frequently use the third person to distance and disassociate themselves from their lie, which sounds more implausible: "Absolutely no party was held at this residence," or "I did not organize a party at this location."

Second, liars are typically more pessimistic because they subconsciously experience remorse for their deceit. For instance, a liar might say, "I apologize, but the battery on my stupid phone perished. "That thing abhors me." Additionally, because it is difficult for the human brain to construct a complex falsehood, liars generally describe events in straightforward language. Evaluative and judgmental processes are difficult for the human brain to compute. A former president of the United States infamously stated, "I had no sexual relations with that woman."

Lastly, despite the fact that liars maintain straightforward descriptions, they frequently employ more complex sentence structures, including superfluous words and seemingly factual details that serve to bolster the fabrication. An additional president, faced with a scandal, issued the following statement: "I can unequivocally declare that this investigation unequivocally proves that no current member of the White House staff or any member of this administration was implicated in this highly peculiar occurrence." Using linguistic analysis, let's examine some well-known examples. Take Lance Armstrong, a seven-time Tour de France champion. In 2013, he admitted to using performance-enhancing substances, whereas in 2005 he denied doing so. His use of personal pronouns increased by approximately three-quarters. Observe the contrast between the two quotations that follow. Initially: "An individual at a laboratory in Paris, France, identified as Jean-Francois so-and-so, examines your sample. Then, you receive a phone call from a newspaper stating, "We discovered that you tested positive for EPO six times." Second: "I completely lost myself in that. I'm certain that some individuals might be unable to handle it, but I certainly could not; I had become accustomed to having complete control over every aspect of my existence. "I had complete control over every outcome in my life." Armstrong characterized a hypothetical circumstance that centered on another individual while he completely distanced himself from the situation in his denial. He takes responsibility for his statements and explores his personal emotions and motivations in his admission. However, personal pronoun usage is not the only sign of deceit. Consider the following illustration from former Senator and presidential candidate of the United States John Edwards: "The only information I possess is that the presumed father has publicly acknowledged paternity of the child.

Furthermore, I have not participated in any activity that solicited, sanctioned, or encouraged payments of any kind towards the woman or the presumed father of the child. This is not only a rather convoluted way of saying "The baby is not mine," but Edwards also never refers to the other parties by name; he uses terms such as "that baby," "the woman," and "the apparent father." Now consider his statement upon his subsequent admission of paternity: "My name is Quinn Dad. I am resolute in my commitment to furnish her with the affection and assistance that she merits." The statement is concise and straightforward, utilizing the child's name and discussing his significance in her life. Thus, what are some practical applications of these lie-spotting techniques?

First, keep in mind that the majority of the falsehoods we encounter daily are considerably less severe and may even be harmless, in comparison to the ones cited above. However, it remains valuable to remain cognizant of warning signs, such as negligible self-references, pessimistic language, straightforward explanations, and intricate wording. It could potentially assist you in circumventing an unproductive product, an overvalued stock, or an awful relationship.