HOW TO SPOT A LIAR

"Sorry, my phone died."

It is insignificant. I'm alright.

"These allegations are completely unfounded."

"The company was not aware of any wrongdoing."

"I love you."

We have spent much of human history devising methods to identify lies, ranging from medieval torture devices to polygraphs, breathing and blood pressure monitors, voice stress analyzers, eye trackers, infrared brain scanners, and even the 400-pound electroencephalogram. Every day, we hear between 10 and 200 lies

. While certain technologies have proven effective in specific situations, most may be tricked with enough practice, and none are deemed trustworthy enough to be admitted in court.

However, what if the fundamental presumption that lying induces physiological changes is more flawed than the methods themselves?

What if we took a more direct approach and examined the lies themselves using communication science tools?

Psychologically, we lie to enhance our self-image by associating our dreams with the person we would like to be rather than the person we actually are.

However, our brain misses a lot of messages when it is preoccupied with dreaming. Approximately 5% of our cognitive function, including communication, is controlled by our conscious mind; the remaining 95% happens outside of our awareness.

Stories based on imagined experiences differ qualitatively from those based on actual experiences, according to research on reality monitoring.

This implies that fabricating a story on a private subject requires effort and leads to a distinct way of using language. Four such recurring themes in the subconscious language of deception have been found with the use of linguistic text analysis technology.

First, when lying, liars make fewer references to themselves. The more they write or speak about other people, the more they separate themselves and detach themselves from their lie, which sounds even more phony:

"Absolutely no party took place at this house"

or

"I didn't host a party here."

Second, because people harbor resentment toward lying deep within, liars typically exhibit more negative traits. A liar can remark, "Sorry, my stupid phone battery died," as an example. I detest that.

Third, since it's difficult for human brains to construct a sophisticated deception, liars usually give a straightforward explanation of what happened. Evaluation and judgment are difficult processes for our brains to process.

Once, a prominent American president claimed, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Lastly, despite the fact that liars write straightforward descriptions, they frequently employ longer, more complex sentences that include extraneous words and information that seem unrelated but are actually true in order to support their lies.

When faced with a controversy, a different president declared, "I can say, categorically, that this investigation indicates that no one on the White House staff, no one in this administration presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident."

Let's examine some well-known instances using language analysis. Consider Lance Armstrong, a seven-time Tour de France champion. His use of personal pronouns increased by over 3/4 between an interview in 2005, when he denied using performance-enhancing drugs, and one in 2013, when he acknowledged doing so. Take note of how these two quotes differ from one another.

First: "All right, so this is how it works: a man at a French laboratory in Paris opens up your sample, Jean-Francis so-and-so, and does tests on it. After that, a newspaper calls to inform you that they have detected six positive EPO tests for you.

Second: "I lost myself in everything." While I'm sure there are others who can't take such things, I personally couldn't handle it because I was used to having complete control over my life. Every result in my life was within my control."

Armstrong completely distanced himself from the incident in his denial, describing it as a hypothetical circumstance centered on someone else. He dives into his own motivations and feelings in his admission, taking full responsibility for his words. However, using personal pronouns is not the only sign of dishonesty.

Now, let's examine another illustration from the past senator and presidential contender,

John Edwards: "All I know is that the presumed father has acknowledged in public that he is the child's father. No action I took would have required, approved, or encouraged payments to the mother or the baby's purported father." That's not only a rather roundabout way of expressing, "The baby isn't mine," but Edwards never addresses the other people by name; instead, he refers to them as "that baby," "the woman," and "the apparent father."

Let's now examine his response to later acknowledging his paternity: "My name is Quinn's dad. I'll do every effort to provide her with the affection and assistance she so well deserves." The brief and straightforward remark addresses the child's role in her life and calls him by name.

So, how can you use these methods for identifying lies in your daily life?

First off, keep in mind that the majority of lies we hear and see in our daily lives are actually innocuous and considerably less dangerous than the ones presented below. Nonetheless, it's still important to be mindful of red flags, such as sparse self-references, disparaging remarks, straightforward explanations, and complicated wording. It might even help you steer clear of a negative relationship, an overpriced stock, or an inefficient product.