How To Be A  Human Lie-detector
Author: David Lieberman

If you think someone has knowledge of someone or something
specific, this technique can be used to help you find the
truth. It works on this psychological principle: A person is
drawn equally to that which he has no prior knowledge. Simply
put, if a person has never heard of Fred, Peter, and Marvin,
his interest in them will be uniform. However, if he knows
Marvin, but not the other two, then he will pay more attention
when Marvin's name is mentioned, in contrast to the other
names.

This technique presents the person with multiple forms of
information. If his interest moves unevenly in one direction,
then it is likely that he has an awareness of certain
information that he has not thus revealed to you. Here's how it
works:

A personnel manager thinks Jimmy may be planning to leave the
company and take a list of clients with him. He suspects Jimmy
has already met with "Mr. Black", the owner of a competing
company. Therefore, the manager simply sits Jimmy down and
casually puts three folders on the desk labeled Mr. Green, Mr.
Blue, and Mr. Black. If Jim has met, or is planning on meeting
with Mr. Black, his gaze will fix longer on Mr. Black's file
than on the other files. Alternatively, Jimmy's gaze will
become mechanical and awkward; unsure of where to look, he will
take-on a very visible unnatural posture.

Another way to apply the technique is by merely talking about
the situation and listening for his focus. First, state all the
facts, as you both know them to be. Then, switch one of them. If
his attention goes to the switched fact, then you know
conclusively he is aware of the situation itself.

For example, let us say a detective is interviewing a suspect
about a robbery. He reads from the report, telling his suspect
exactly what happened, except he switches a key point about the
facts of the crime. If the suspect is guilty, his attention will
instinctively go to the key point. What he hears surprises him.
He wants to be sure he heard you right, and he will use the
"inconsistency" as a reason why he could not have committed the
crime. The only way he would know to focus in on one "fact"
would be if he did commit the crime. If he is innocent, then
all of the details are unknown to him, and so he is incapable
of separating them into categories of true or false. Let us see
what this dialogue sounds like in action:

The detective reads off the "facts" to his suspect, as he knows
them. "The suspect shot the teller . . . left in a green sedan
with California license plates . . .[then add one piece of
false information] crashed into another car . . . got out,
jumped over a fence, and got away." If the suspect is guilty,
he will question the incorrect detail: "crashed into another
car? My car doesn't have a scratch on it. It couldn't have been
my car!" His proof, as to why he is innocent, uses the one false
piece of information; by doing so, he reveals he knows the whole
story.

This article is based on techniques from Dr. David J.
Lieberman's latest book, YOU CAN READ ANYONE, and is available
in paperback or as an e-book wherever books are sold.


About The Author: David J. Lieberman, Ph.D., is an
award-winning author and internationally recognized leader in
the field of human behavior and interpersonal relationships.
Techniques based on his seven books, which have been translated
into eighteen languages and include two New York Times
bestsellers, are used by the FBI, The Department of the Navy,
Fortune 500 companies, and by governments, corporations, and
mental health professionals in more than twenty-five countries.
He has appeared as a guest expert on more than two hundred
programs such as The Today Show, Fox News, and The View, and
his work has been featured in publications around the world.
Questions, comments, and inquiries are welcome to be sent to
DavidJay@aol.com