The Human Behavior Podcast

Deception Detection

May 14, 2024 The Human Behavior Podcast
Deception Detection
The Human Behavior Podcast
More Info
The Human Behavior Podcast
Deception Detection
May 14, 2024
The Human Behavior Podcast

Send us a Text Message.

This week we are jumping into the world of everyday lie detection, where even seasoned professionals grapple with biases and contextual cues. Through a blend of anecdotes and psychological insights, we illuminate the complex interplay between deceivers and those in pursuit of honesty. Whether it's in professional settings, personal relationships, or the tension-filled rooms of interrogations, understanding the nuances of human behavior unlocks a new perspective about deception detection.
 
 As we discuss the dynamics of interrogation techniques and the elusive nature of honesty, we confront the profound ways human emotions like anxiety and shame can distort the quest for truth. With a nod to historical methods of lie detection and the compelling truths unearthed in our digital footprints, the episode transcends the simplicity of 'gotcha' moments, and instead, invites you to join us in a playful challenge – to apply these insights into deception in your daily life. After all, the more we grasp the subtleties of deception, the more adept we become at discerning the truth that lies beneath.

Thank you so much for tuning in, we hope you enjoy the episode and please check out our Patreon channel where we have a lot more content, as well as subscriber only episodes of the show. If you enjoy the podcast, I would kindly ask that you leave us a review and more importantly, please share it with a friend. Thank you for your time and don’t forget that Training Changes Behavior!

Support the Show.

Website: https://thehumanbehaviorpodcast.buzzsprout.com/share

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheHumanBehaviorPodcast

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehumanbehaviorpodcast/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ArcadiaCognerati

More about Greg and Brian: https://arcadiacognerati.com/arcadia-cognerati-leadership-team/

Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

Send us a Text Message.

This week we are jumping into the world of everyday lie detection, where even seasoned professionals grapple with biases and contextual cues. Through a blend of anecdotes and psychological insights, we illuminate the complex interplay between deceivers and those in pursuit of honesty. Whether it's in professional settings, personal relationships, or the tension-filled rooms of interrogations, understanding the nuances of human behavior unlocks a new perspective about deception detection.
 
 As we discuss the dynamics of interrogation techniques and the elusive nature of honesty, we confront the profound ways human emotions like anxiety and shame can distort the quest for truth. With a nod to historical methods of lie detection and the compelling truths unearthed in our digital footprints, the episode transcends the simplicity of 'gotcha' moments, and instead, invites you to join us in a playful challenge – to apply these insights into deception in your daily life. After all, the more we grasp the subtleties of deception, the more adept we become at discerning the truth that lies beneath.

Thank you so much for tuning in, we hope you enjoy the episode and please check out our Patreon channel where we have a lot more content, as well as subscriber only episodes of the show. If you enjoy the podcast, I would kindly ask that you leave us a review and more importantly, please share it with a friend. Thank you for your time and don’t forget that Training Changes Behavior!

Support the Show.

Website: https://thehumanbehaviorpodcast.buzzsprout.com/share

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheHumanBehaviorPodcast

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehumanbehaviorpodcast/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ArcadiaCognerati

More about Greg and Brian: https://arcadiacognerati.com/arcadia-cognerati-leadership-team/

Speaker 1:

Hello everyone and welcome to this week's episode of the Human Behavior Podcast. This week, we are jumping into the world of everyday lie detection, or even seasoned professionals grapple with biases and contextual cues. Through a blend of anecdotes and psychological insights, we illuminate the complex interplay between deceivers and those in pursuit of honesty, whether it's in professional settings, personal relationships or the tension-filled rooms of interrogations. Understanding the nuances of human behavior unlocks a new perspective about deception detection. As we discuss the dynamics of interrogation techniques and the elusive nature of honesty, we confront the profound ways human emotions like anxiety and shame can distort the quest for truth. With a nod to historical methods of lie detection and the compelling truths unearthed in our digital footprints, the episode transcends the simplicity of gotcha moments and instead invites you to join us in a playful challenge to apply these insights into deception in your daily life. After all, the more we grasp at the subtleties of deception, the more adept we become at discerning the truth that lies beneath. Thank you so much for tuning in. We hope you enjoyed the episode and please check out our Patreon channel, where we have a lot more content, as well as subscriber only episodes of the show. If you enjoyed the podcast, I would kindly ask that you leave us a review and, more importantly, please share it with a friend. Thank you for your time and don't forget that training changes behavior. Well, hello everyone, everyone and hello Greg.

Speaker 1:

We'll go ahead and get started today on this episode of the Human Behavior Podcast. Thanks everyone for tuning in. Today's a good one to get into, and we're talking about deception, detection in a number of different domains people, machines, deception detection and in a number of different domains uh, people, machines, uh, studies, uh, all kinds of different stuff. But the reason uh, I want to want to get into this one we sort of chose is we're going to start doing some recurring kind of themes in the show. Um, almost like a I don't want to call it a myth busters, but we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll talk about some of the common uh myths about, you know, mostly psychology or sociology and just human behavior in general.

Speaker 1:

There's a lot of kind of junk science out there or something that started great in a lab or in a study and then went off the rails somewhere and almost because it becomes almost like pop psychology, you know, it gets out there and then people think that this is true. There's so many assumptions that are made and there's a great. It's like a book, it's a PDF ebook I'll put on Patreon site for all the subscribers and they go through. And some guys it came out like probably 10 or 15 years ago and they said 50 great myths of popular psychology and they chunked them really well and they went down one through 50. Popular psychology and they chunked them really well and they went down one through 50. And there's far more, especially now since 2010, 2010. But uh, it's, it's uh, it was interesting and I like the way they did it and they did some great research. It's almost like each one.

Speaker 1:

There's little bullet points. They explain what the myth is. They say here's what it is, uh, here's where that kind of came from. Or here's the studies that actually disprove that. Or they sometimes say like, well, this is unknown, or we can't quite make the conclusion that this sort of myth does, and I guess I would use the term myth sort of generally. I wouldn't. You know, and this is just you know, and we've had these discussions before about something that happens in the lab or on a college campus or in a study does not directly translate all the time to the real world or what that means. Now, it may be interesting or novel or unique or there's some sort of maybe correlation between something that needs more study and the reason why I'm kind of prefacing it this way.

Speaker 1:

Greg, it's not always the researchers or the people doing the work that screw this up. They're the. They're the ones that are like hey, I found all this really cool stuff, and then it kind of gets kicked out into the public and people take it and completely misrepresent it. They use it for things that it doesn't apply to. People write an article saying, wow, look at this new thing, and so it's typically people do the well, okay, cool, like more research is needed. But sometimes, man, that that gets a hold out in the I would say, general public kind of thing and it just, it just goes, it spreads like wildfire.

Speaker 1:

So that was a big one with detecting deception and specifically because one there's a lot of shows out there about interviews and like homicide stuff and we'll get into that, and there's different interview techniques and there's a lot of assumptions made with those that people don't realize how they work or why they work sometimes and also why they go wrong sometimes. But I would say, just in general, detecting deception is very difficult, even just deception, like I like that better than saying you know a lie detector, because a lie kind of sort of you know it has some sort of intent behind it, meaning where it's deception, like okay, like maybe I think you're deceiving me, greg, but I don't know why. Maybe it's not because, like yes, you killed that guy, it's because you're some other reason. You know what I mean. It's you're embarrassed, you don't want to talk to me about that subject. So that's why I use deception. But there's people that think that they're good at it. They're not. There's machines that think they're good at it. I don't think they detect deception. They detect something else that we'll get into it.

Speaker 1:

But that's sort of a quick intro of some of the stuff we're going to go over today and we'll bring up some of the famous ones. Your buddy Ekman from the show Lie to Me Well, I mean, it wasn't from that show, but they kind of based a lot of it on him who, again, it's a great example. If anyone's familiar with Ekman, we'll have this stuff on the Patreon site. But he had some great research and then his studies that he came up with and his hypothesis was wrong because you can't replicate it and people still use it, even though 10 years ago some like graduate student at mit, like basically poked holes in everything that he did, saying you can't replicate these studies. So it's just an it's, it's an example for those who've heard of it. But I'm going to throw you greg about kind of, you know, deception detection in general. Um, to get started before maybe we get to the whole polygraph thing, yeah and and.

Speaker 2:

holy crap when you start off with an intro. So much wonderful information. I wrote one, two, three, four. I wrote at least 15 things down here because Max was.

Speaker 1:

Max was up early.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, exactly, Brian and I are not only both on cocaine all the time, but we get up very early, hit the gym and then, by the time we get to the recording, Brian's like what are we going to talk about today?

Speaker 1:

I'd be terrified to see you on cocaine.

Speaker 2:

Just absolutely terrified.

Speaker 1:

You don't need uppers. You're not a guy that needs uppers.

Speaker 2:

So no, and welcome everybody. But this is so good and I wrote this down and I think you should listen to it, and I mean that our listeners and our viewers. Mistakes of fact with intent are called lies, don't ever forget that. So that key is where we start with deception, detection, deception detection and I'll give you a random, because you know I love film. Forbidden Planet the 1950s maybe 1954, came out Leslie Nielsen, walter Pidgeon, incredible film, robbie the Robot, you know. And what happened right after that film came out? And it was a high budget, not a B or a C film with really great action and animation and everything. What happened after that film came out, brian, is the number of UFO sightings increased exponentially.

Speaker 2:

It went from virtually nothing to everything. People started describing him as a saucer and indeed flying saucers. What was depicted in the film? Right? So the power of suggestion is huge and it's even huger, bigger, larger, scientifically, when it's a new word, by the way, when we're vulnerable. So what happens is that we believe stuff to be true. That's street lore. That is. Look, I'll tell everybody to be true. That's street lore, that. That that is on. Look, I'll tell everybody.

Speaker 2:

Do this, think back to when you first learned about sex and who you heard that information from, and all of the lies and the oh yeah, you know. The, the, uh, from the stork to the to hide your kids, folks, uh, to where the baby's coming out of and you know how long the gestation period is, and stuff. Those things are called street lore. Those things are, and I love myth, but uh, myth comes from mythology. Go look it up. And what happens is is there's things that are hard for us to explain. So we go to an alternative method of explaining them, and the alternative method is generally accepted in a small group and we call them now like rumors or gossip. But if they persist, brian, then what happens is that a person goes. Well, you know what Jim said. Well, jim's a credible source, so we've got to believe that. And you know what? Yesterday, when the sun came up, there was vapor on the whatever, and so now we start finding clues that we know where that comes from the full moon.

Speaker 2:

Those type of things, brian, when people unintentionally do them, it's street lore. When a person does that with intent to deceive you in some manner or to gain an advantage on you in some manner, then it's a lie. And what happens is we watch way too much television on the same shit. Like how many more exposés do we have to have on Loch Ness? Right, I mean, we've run it to ground, but with a homicide. That one homicide will spawn nine different shows. The cheerleader murders yeah, the Midwest cheerleader murders. Who'd have thunk the boyfriend done it. You know, in all of these things, because we love gore porn, we love homicides. Why? Because we all know that that's the thing we can't escape. We can't escape death. And when we see somebody that that is in a situation where they uh, uh, were led away from from life in some suspicious manner, then man, we start. And those shows are an hour long, brian, they could be three minutes long, yeah, three minutes long. So what do they do? They go. The janitor that lived down the lane, then they go.

Speaker 1:

Well, at the airport, we found the car holy shit you know the thing is and it just to kind of caveat what you're saying with the um, with the different shows that come out. You know, because they make a show on it, it's typically because it's remarkable, it's unique, it's a it unique, it's a different case than what normally happens. That's why you're hearing about it, that's why it has a three-episode or part series or something like that on Netflix. It's because it's such a unique or different case that it's worthy to comment on. The other 99% of hom are the someone gets angry and kills someone that they know.

Speaker 2:

I mean it's like but you also know that once they have, uh, identified the one that had that strange twist, that had that unique uh thing, what they'll do now is they'll come at it from different angles. They'll come at it from the school teacher, or from that it happened at night, or uh, who to thunk that fishermen can be this violent? And so what they do is they do what the cooking show has done and you know I love my cooking shows, right, but the cooking shows have jumped the shark. There's only so many ways to poach a fucking egg. And so what happens now is they've got the Buffalo grudge match and they've got the barbecue. You know, outback hammer homicide.

Speaker 1:

We're going to pair up someone who's never cooked before with a chef. Exactly, and we're going to have, like you know, the dogs, and then the dogs with bees in their mouths.

Speaker 2:

You're so spot on Great Simpsons reference. But the problem with that is that every homicide show on television shows horse shit, wrong stuff, just like the cooking show showing the worst of Come on. We know better than that. All you got to do is open a book. All you got to do is go online. But it's interesting and we love seeing people at their worst and vulnerable. So why do I say that the homicide shows are wrong?

Speaker 2:

How many times have you seen on a homicide show where they stick a camera in somebody's face and exactly this happens? The nightly local news does this all the time. They take a neophyte that had no idea about television or uh facts or anything, and they stick that. So what was your neighbor like? And they don't know. They don't fucking know what their neighbor was like. And what happens is they'll say look at how this person acted in the interview room, look at how they acted at the funeral. Brian, yeah, you and I have seen more dead people than alive people and we've been around both homicidal maniacs and, uh uh, normal, clinically people that had to use extreme methods, including homicide, to get to get out of a nasty situation. And yeah, you named two of them that were alike. You named the reactions right from a group. We couldn't group them because they're all strangely different. You react differently. I react with humor, uh, uh. You react by getting quiet and sullen.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, okay, um yeah, what does that mean? Don't fucking talk to me, don't do this, don't like. I don't want to hear about people, so obviously you're hiding something, right?

Speaker 2:

yeah, how do you? How do you get that in the recipe all of a sudden?

Speaker 1:

Right. So you, you, and that's where it comes from. It's like everyone's thinks that there's sort of a typical way to handle those situations and there isn't. Now you will, you will be so that. So you're not going to see consistent reactions across. You know a segment of people. There's certain things, small elements, that will be universal, but the individual cues can kind of be very different. And now you will be internally consistent, like, like you know, you're going to be consistent, greg, with how you do it every time. I'm going to be consistent, while how I do it every time you know, like, but but to me, comparing to you, it would be two different things, and, and so it's an important part to remember.

Speaker 2:

So you know you're spot on it. So let's go to the science. Brian, what does science say about that? Science says that we have to look for incongruent signals. Incongruence helps us detect anomalies. Now that we've hooked on to the anomaly, we measure it against a known or suspected baseline. That's simple science. What do I mean? I mean I can't just look at a three-second video of a person getting out of a car at a funeral or a wake and go. They did it. Look, it's clear, because we have to measure against that person's baseline at that time and in that place. That's why space-time is so amazing. That's why we talk about the gift of time and distance. The more we know about the person, the more we know about the situation. Now we can actually say those are likely deception indicators. What do we mean?

Speaker 1:

by that.

Speaker 2:

If you're doing something completely different. You may be cheating on your spouse, or you may be molesting your kid, or you may be a shoplifter, but it's that baseline change, brian, that we're looking for, right.

Speaker 1:

And so, to hit on what people have studied with this before, because there's been a lot of people who study, you know, deception and interrogation and questioning, and there's different techniques and methods out there and some of them are. They're typically very context dependent.

Speaker 2:

Yes, Right, ok.

Speaker 1:

And the reason why I bring this up because in the Patreon subscribers you can check this out in the article, the PDF, that I'll put on there.

Speaker 1:

But there's a guy you know, dr Ekman, who did a lot of studies on this and then he kind of came up with some of the like the micro facial features and different things, and his sort of theories have been completely, you know, like just been like, yeah, this doesn't work or you can't replicate this. This is so. No, this is basically unscientific, your findings. But his research was great and what he even found was, like one people are horrible at detecting deception. Even people like, um, you know, police officers or investigators or interrogators, like are not any better than the average person in detecting deception out of someone. And because, for a lot of reasons, we come in with, like you said, a lot of confirmation bias and and and then we conflate different things, like there's different interview techniques, that that you and I bash sometimes in our in-person courses. I don't want to get on here because they're kind of litigious but, but, but, but, but, but, but.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, they're wrong but they're litigious, they've got money, yeah, so but the idea is well, a lot of times they're, they're, they're meant for a specific context. Yeah, and may work in that context, yeah. However, if I do that and I'm right, and I use this method, and I catch you, greg, or I get you to admit fault or admit you know, to a homicide, and that works for me, that's my go-to now and I will jam a square peg in a round hole.

Speaker 1:

Every time because you won the first time Things that they didn't do, and it happens, it happens all the time, and so that's that's the big thing, that that humans are not great at it because, um, you know, like you, you don't know where that's coming from, you don't know what, what this person's doing. And I had a random car. I just thought of this, actually, when we were, um, uh, I was driving somewhere but I was like in a rush and I had to stop, get gas, I'm gonna grab something to drink. And then, like I was kind of in a sort of a sketchy area and like I kept looking out at my vehicle and looking what's going around and when I went up to pay at the cash register, the, um, the, the attendee that got working there was like he was all over me. He was like, hey, man, like everything, everything good, like, oh yeah, all right, you seem kind of nervous or something Like he was getting nervous, thinking like I was about you're gonna like yeah, yeah well, or like I was fleeing something.

Speaker 1:

You know what I'm saying. But I had so much going on in my mind and I was just trying to get in there real quick, and I was looking out the window and there's people coming in. It was like one of these odd places that I didn't really notice, like until I got inside that I was like, oh man, that's probably not the best place to stop. So I was trying to be quick then too.

Speaker 1:

So this guy's like you're adding up before come on because he sits there every day and sees he has such a great baseline for for for a behavior at a gas station you know, I mean convenience store. He sees every different type of character of people and so he was pinging on me doing confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error like hey, is this dude? Did this dude just commit a homicide and he's fleeing the state? Because it was like right near a state line.

Speaker 1:

It was like, you know, it was one of those things where it was just like but it just, it just reminded me of that. It's a, it's a perfect everyday example. You know where, where you know we get that wrong I want to resurrect ekman.

Speaker 2:

Ekman is a great man, a great thinker, and he came up with some wonderful hypotheses and during hypotheses testing, some of the stuff worked and some of it didn't. And just like a person that unknowingly follows that false clue and create something from it and then only to be dashed later on, I mean, that's what history shows about science, right? Hey, you know, pluto, it's a planet. It's not Well with Ekman. The problem is I don't want his record to go downhill for all the good stuff that he did, because a couple of things that he did are completely unfounded. But let's do a limited, objective experiment, brian, and I can't use you, because we're talking about relationships, right, and so I would ask everybody in the audience what is the longest relationship you've been in, whether it's dating or casual or a marriage situation? And did that end with some deception, subterfuge? And if it did, how long did it go before you figured out you were being lied to? So now hold that here, brian, holding up my left hand and on the right hand, you've got an hour in the interview room before somebody asked for an attorney to get them to tell you everything about that. Now listen, interview rooms are great. But you know what they're good for? They're good for tying somebody to a story so we can impeach their testimony later, and that's the greatest way of finding out if your kid's lying or if your spouse is lying, right. So now, if we go back and we look at that and go wait a minute, I was fooled for a good long time. Why? Because everybody lies.

Speaker 2:

Now, everybody lies. They lie about things to save face. They lie about things to get away from things or get away with things. What's the difference between getting away with and away from? I don't want to talk about that right now, brian. So I go oh yeah, it was a great show. I'm lying, it wasn't a great show and I hated it. But you know what? I want to go to the water cooler and get my bagel and go back to my room, right? Or I want you to believe that I'm really in on that because I want to gain an advantage with you. So they're totally different things, but we all do them and we've even categorized them, brian. We go. Well, a white lie is okay and it's okay to lie about that. The problem is that when we start going to methods of detection, it all goes back to that Salem Massachusetts. Remember the witch? Yeah, the witch trial.

Speaker 2:

So, okay, remember the witch, yeah, the witch trial. Okay, does the witch float? Well, witches are notorious, lighter than water, so that one will float, which means she is a witch. So we kill her, or she's normal, and she drowns and we go oh, thank God, she wasn't a witch, but she's dead. We all come to those same unscientific outcomes and we rush to those. Why, brian, you talked about it. When that dopamine gets released, when you get that caper and that person does confess and you get the answer. Can I tell you a story about repeat performance?

Speaker 2:

So early on in my career we had a situation and the parents were believing the kid and the kid was a known liar and the kid was a known thief. And they had come into the office and they were talking to everybody. And I go, we got to get this kid to divulge that he's been lying to his parents. So I put a riot helmet on the kid and I had him sit next to the copy machine and I already printed up a piece of paper that said he's lying. And so in front of the kid, I asked him just a couple of perfunctory questions and I said listen, I want you to tell the truth to each one of these, do you understand? Yeah, and on the one that I knew that he was lying to his parents about, I pressed the copy machine and it came out and I showed him and I go look, you're lying. The truth detector, you know what I'm saying is showing that you're lying. And the kid started sobbing. He looked at his parents and he goes it was Billy and Jimmy and Tommy were there and we laughed it off but it worked.

Speaker 2:

So probably 11 or 12, and I'm not proud of any of this folks 12 or 13 years later, maybe 11 or 12, I was in Colorado. We had a situation where the kid was alleging stuff and the parents were believing them and it wasn't true. There was zero evidence. As a matter of fact, there was a bunch of evidence contrary to that that demonstrated that the kid was using deception to get back at this person. And so we were in my office and I happened to be the interim chief of police at the time and the way my office was set up is I could type stuff at my computer Remember the old days with the big monitor and stuff and when I hit play to save room, the printer was out in the lobby, you know, but it would go straight to that printer with a cord that came in. So we had the kid come in and I go hey, you know, we have the voice stress analyzer. You know it's been tested. So what you're going to do is just speak in a normal voice. I'm going to ask you these control questions.

Speaker 2:

It was all a ruse, brian. Every bit of it was a lie. And it came up. He's lying, he's lying, he's lying. And I showed it to the kid and the same thing. They turn to the parents and they go okay, you're right, extreme methods twice in my career, because the first time it worked and even though it was a joke, it was practical because it was unscientific. We all knew that it was a ruse and if the kid would fall for that, they would fall for anything. So I have a very low opinion of lie detectors because of that. Because it was the inference, brian, it was the setting, it was all of these other things rather than scientific evidence. But I knew it would work because the person was vulnerable to those suggestions.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, so let's jump into the polygraph lie detector.

Speaker 1:

But real quick, I'll also have a link up and there's actually a great book. I know it's more about data science and everything, but it's called Everybody Lies. Yeah, great book. Ways to get good, truthful information is look at what people search in their google history and and or even google trends over time, because that you like, the most honest you're going to be is when you're at home alone on your computer on that google search bar. Um, but, but so, but the, the that end, brian polygraph, remember.

Speaker 2:

To that end. Yeah, delete. If I die in this chair, delete my browser history, please. Okay, yeah.

Speaker 1:

No one needs to see that, but the polygraph thing is a great one. So anytime people have asked me about that or my thoughts on it, I just flatly say there's an absolute reason why it is not admissible in court. Right, there's a reason why you can't use that. Now maybe there's other reasons to use it. It's not that it's just completely unnecessary or not needed or junk Like. You can use that kind of like you did, but you didn't even have a real one.

Speaker 2:

It was all a lie and it worked flawlessly because of it. It was a parlor trick.

Speaker 1:

So what is that then? What is the polygraph and what's the purpose of it? You know what I mean, because I think there's a lot of misconceptions about it too.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and I want to tell you that there are a couple of states that allow the results of a polygraph test, five or six Alabama, california, florida but it's in very specific wavelengths, a very laser focus and, for example, the government can also use it in certain ways to determine your yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2:

Go do the research on that to find out. So, for example, I had both Michigan and Colorado as my law enforcement and then federal time with other agencies. And you know what? We never used it. I have almost 30 years in law enforcement and never once on any caper that we used ever did we use a polygraph. Now, the two times I used it as a ruse, it both worked because of the suggestion. So a real polygraph machine, a lie detector, is the lesser, more often used but less scientific name let's call it. It provides a continuous visual record of your physiological activity, so whether it's your blood pressure, your respiration, your skin conductance, and all of that is put on a chart. And then guess what happens. Brian, a human trained as an examiner determines what that means. So so didn't we do that once with bones on a on a car hood? I know I'm being a dick, folks. If you're a polygraph examiner, I've got a very low opinion of charlatans in general, and if you can show me where there's science to back it up, then I'll go with it.

Speaker 2:

But there's not enough science to be admissible in court, brian. So I have a problem with it, and I think that's okay that. My personal opinion is that, while they may offer helpful clues, why do we not believe that the lie that we think we're indicating is actually anxiety? Do you remember in 2013 or whatever, when we did that thing after Ekman, with the anxiety detectors at the airports? Are they still there, brian? No, they took them out because they were giving false positives, because people are anxious when they get in line to go through TSA. They're anxious when they go to get on a plane. You see what I mean. I just don't believe it's a scientific threshold yet.

Speaker 1:

Well, I've even seen, you know, polygraph examiners get you know sort of interviewed and they even say it. They're like, well, yeah, it has a lot to do with the examiner and how you do this. It's like, okay, so it's not the machine. Is what we're saying? Like even they're saying it's not the machine, it's the person administering the test.

Speaker 2:

It's like what do we know what a human it doesn't do anything.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that's what I mean. It's like you can't really you know, then, how scientific is this? And so, like you said, it's a, it's a measurement of, of different physiological factors, so it can show physiological arousal, right?

Speaker 1:

Your increase in heart rate, uh, uh, respiration like skin. You know that you're how much uh sweat and stuff like that. There's a bunch of stuff you can do, but again it comes down to, um, you know why someone's being deceptive you don't always know, or or maybe they're anxious and those things can get conflated very easily and and so you know it kind of goes back to what you were talking about. Well, you know you want to get someone's story and what they said, to see if that changes, to see or or what they, what they leak out.

Speaker 1:

because you know, a lot of times and and you know I'm using these, these shows, as shows, as a reference that are on a million documentaries and there's all these interviews and these different techniques that people use and a lot of them are successful because they know going in to the interview that, all right, this is likely the suspect. There's no one else, right, we think it's them, we have all this evidence, but it's all so circumstantial, no-transcript, make sure. Like okay, well, I don't want anything to do with this because I don't want to get in trouble, but, but I don't also want to rat this person out because then I'm screwed, you know so. So there's all this stuff going on in there and you can't really effectively measure that on an individual or come up with certain. You can't really extrapolate enough quality information out of there to make a good there. Know, like there's deception indicators, right, yes, but I don't know why you're being deceptive, right?

Speaker 1:

If all of a sudden, you have a lack of episodic saliva and your hypothalamus heats up because there's different reasons why that stuff happens, you have those physiological responses and it's kind of like one of the best ways I saw it described, which I like, but it's sort of like a fight between your prefrontal cortex and your limbic system. But it's sort of like a fight between your prefrontal cortex and your limbic system? Yeah, of course, because your prefrontal cortex will lie all day long. That's your. Some people call it your lying brain, right, but your limbic system, your primitive brain, knows what actually happened.

Speaker 1:

So it's going like wait, what's going on here? No, we were there. Oh shit, are we in a survival situation? I'm going to start kicking out some catecholamines here, a little bit of cortisol, maybe, a little bit of epinephrine to kind of help you through, because this, I don't know, what's going on here. This is danger. This is bad, you know. But but that same stuff might happen when you're just anxious and you haven't slept for a few days and you know you, something traumatic happened, you know. So you can have all of these different physiological responses for different reasons, which produce, you know, a false positive or a false negative even too.

Speaker 2:

I mean, you'll get some, so I just let's go to the law and let's go to science, because you're spot on in both. So let's go to the law. Circumstantial evidence has solved more capers than any other form of evidence ever, and it's always leads the jury or the judge to show them the story Real quick.

Speaker 1:

can you kind of define like circumstantial versus direct evidence?

Speaker 2:

yeah, yeah yeah, so if I don't have an artifact or a piece of evidence that I can hold up and it's demonstrable, so I say these fingerprints go to that person, this blood goes to that person and both of them were found inside the body of the you know decedent. You know it's something that's correct and it's linking and it's science-based. Okay.

Speaker 2:

And we have a video of the homicide in progress and you turn and smile at the camera. Okay, those are so rare, they're like Henstie. But circumstantial evidence means that, hey, your cell phone pinged in the area and we have this ATM camera that shows what appears to be your vehicle going by. And then later at the Walmart you used your credit card and then the person was dumped in an area that you used to go hunting or climbing at. Okay, brian, those things would add up to demonstrate to a reasonable person that this is most likely the person that committed it. And more people are in prison on that. And do we get that wrong? Of course we get that wrong, but it's so rare that we get it wrong that the Innocent Project doesn't have thousands and thousands of capers. You get it Okay, unless somebody really lied or put their thumb on the scale. It's a rarity.

Speaker 2:

Right now, somebody at home that's a cop or a detective is going. Oh, you guys are full of shit because I use the polygraph all the time and I get the best confessions and I use this. Look, the reason you do is because you got a great caper, you got a slam dunk, you got a shoe in, you got one of those capers, where the evidence and interviews and everything went well. And that's why you're getting to where you're getting, because there are things called unsolved and they're unsolved largely because we miskeep pieces of evidence or the person knows when to invoke the. What is that? Friday call? You get what I'm trying to say Shut the F up Friday, right, yeah, and why I mean that? Why I mean that is look, I'll give you a deception indicator that I ask everybody to go and try to debunk on your own.

Speaker 2:

Brian, in all the times that I've dealt with human beings in and out of police work in my own life, I know when a person's crying and that it's genuine, and I know when a person can't generate the tears. Now you're saying, yeah, but there's actors that can cry on cue. Yeah, I got it. But again, what is the context and relevance of that crying? But when all of a sudden somebody's going oh, tommy and Billy were there and they're doing the act in the interview room now and no tears are coming, tears are easy, brian, I cry four or five times a day now. I'm just a mess, right, and I always get tears.

Speaker 1:

I cry myself to sleep every night.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, exactly, and you're a men's pillow, but I get those tears that are just coming down all the time and they're hot and my eyes get red and everything else. Watch how many times that you see a person where they're doing the convincing body motion but you're not getting those reactions. You're getting a red face, of course, and they're pushing as hard as they can, but no tears are coming. Now, if you're a physiologist or if you're a doctor and you go, well, I'll tell you what. When a person has the you know so-and-so disease because there's a disease for everything but Brian, what are the chances that that person not only had that disease but also was involved in a homicide and was the likely prime suspect? Because we don't just go out and grab somebody that lived on the same block and throw them in that chair. That's what people mistakenly get, because if we can solve a problem in 30 minutes or an hour on TV, we start thinking well, guess what? That's ingenious. And I'll give you one.

Speaker 2:

Cbs News 1986, 60 Minutes, did the expose where they hired the polygraph firms, three or four polygraph firms and what they did is they said, hey, there was this theft and here are the people. And it was all contrived, brian, and each one of them came up with the suspect and were willing to testify to the fact that that person was guilty. If you can show me that parlor trick, which I disclosed, I'd used twice, many times more in my career. There were times being out on the street going through a dark backyard in Detroit and there were so many hedges and alleys and everything else and I knew the suspect was close and I go. All right, I see you Come out with your hands up. I swear to God, I'm going to shoot you and I was flying my ass off, and here they come back out of the edge.

Speaker 2:

You know what I'm trying to say. But, brian, that suggestion works both ways. That's a knife that cuts both ways. Would you agree that a polygraph examiner that's given the case profile because they have to be in on nuanced parts of the case that the news doesn't know, nobody else knows, only the suspect would know. Could that change how you ask or how you feel about the person, and could that be conveyed to the person, changing the results?

Speaker 2:

So look, the beautiful way of conducting surveillance on a human is to fly in the wall, because you never noticed the fly in the wall, okay, and you don't impact everything that's going on, even though you know. Uh, you do physically impact in some manner, right, but the idea is it's much less than sitting somebody down and going knee to knee with them and go where were you on the night of the 23rd? That's a completely different environment. And, brian, if you lie, you were you on the night of the 23rd. That's a completely different environment. And, brian, if you lie, you gave the convenience store example. Folks, you don't understand that Brian spends a lot of time at convenience stores and McDonald's because you get some free Wi-Fi. That's how the show is being funded right now, but the idea is, brian, what if I'm anxious because you're going to find out that?

Speaker 2:

I told you that I'm a fatty, okay, and I like hiding snacks all around the house. So I eat well, shelly monitors everything I do. I work my ass off. I've lost a ton of weight. I feel great, but I'll tell you what. I've got a couple of hidey holes in a place for shit that I like. So I like those nutty bars. I go crazy for a nutty bar with coffee, but I got to hide them. Why? Because I'm letting Shelly down and that bothers the shit out of me. So if you talked about where I bought those nutty bars and that just happened to be on the same street as the homicide, I'm going to lie my ass off about that.

Speaker 2:

And you know what it's going to do. It's going to demonstrate anxiety. So your brain doesn't understand how to regulate. Way too much anxiety and way too less. So it'll come across as what Deception. But you can't tell. The deception is because you have flogged everybody to death with a five pound sledge. You know what I'm saying. Or if you're just keeping the fact that, hey, I've been cheating on my wife and I don't want her to find out that the reason I didn't come home that night is because I was cheating, right, I mean, you know, that willful misrepresentation of the truth.

Speaker 1:

You know that's going to come out somewhere, brian, it has to. Yeah, and you're, um, you know, kind of goes back to people being being different and and this I equate the, the deception indicators and, um, you know the polygraph kind of stuff. It's almost like when you're talking about human behavior and you get into kinesics and body language, right, um, it's, it's, it's great, there's some things you can. But if you're starting I mean, there's some things you can understand just through someone's body language and what they're doing but if you're starting there, you're probably setting yourself up for failure. Right, that's where you sort of start, and then those might be the icing on the cake or the, the sprinkles on top of the cupcake to go. Okay, I'm fairly confident.

Speaker 1:

Now, this is, this is the last 10% I needed. They're clearly being deceptive. You know what I'm saying. Like you're picking up on some, some, something that that's happening, even if you can't quite clearly articulate it, like, why would they? But? But again, you're, you're sort of tying it back to knowns. So you're always starting with these knowns.

Speaker 1:

Here's what I know, and then I can compare the unknowns versus the knowns. In a sense, it's like well, I don't know about this and this is what they said. And then you can do that same thing, like we talked about the explanatory storyline, like, okay, if that's what happened, that story that happened, if that's what happened, that story that happened, what else needs to be true for that story to be happened, for that situation to occur? Right, and then you can go back and like, well, those factors weren't there, so it's unlikely that that story is is true. And again, you don't always know why, right.

Speaker 1:

And and I the other thing that people really get into is it goes back to you know, we always like to say people want their say, not their way. Yes, human humans are constantly on transmit. That's why you know, when they do have those suspects in there, that they they think like, all right, all the evidence is pointing this person, and so a lot of times it's done just to try to get them to talk. Right, and they're trying to get them to talk because it's way easier to go to all right, we got a confession and we're good, it's a slam dunk.

Speaker 2:

Then or they implicated themselves in some manner. Maybe it didn't rise to the level of a confession, brian, but maybe through that talking, they either impeach their testimony or, you know, implicated in themselves. Yes, I know that person. Yes, I was at that house right. And now they've got something else to go on. Totally with you on this.

Speaker 1:

Yep, and that's a reason why some of those things exist. And you know, there's all these different studies and people trying different techniques and for the most part it doesn't. The only thing is, if you're trying to get someone to talk or tell you something is like you have to build that rapport and you have to get them talking. You have to keep them going, that rapport, and you have to get them talking. You have to keep them going and then they'll either they'll you know, if it's in the case of a homicide or something like that yeah, maybe they will kind of want to get that off their chest and they will want to tell someone it's weighing heavily, but you already basically know at that point, right, that's the thing is like those, those shows aren't riveting to me. It's not suspenseful because it's like, well, this guy obviously did it, like you're just trying to draw it out of them, and it takes time. Because it's like, well, this guy obviously did it, like you're just trying to draw it out of him, and that takes time right.

Speaker 1:

And that's even the comparison to, like you know, the enhanced interrogation or torture and stuff like that. It's like it's never been shown to work, like if you torture someone they're going to tell you what you want to hear they're going to tell you anything to get that shit to stop.

Speaker 1:

That's actually actually. You can go back and read about the, the kind of like the, what the chinese did during, like the korean war uh, there's some great ones on that because they they did. They chose the long sort of psychological route with with different american captors and slowly over time got them to kind of like, even if they weren't admitting to something. They would end up writing like a story saying, yeah, I renounced the united states and its ways and communism is better, and this, and I've realized this, and they're doing something. They would end up writing like a story saying, yeah, I renounced the United States and its ways and communism is better, and this, and I've realized this, and they're doing that willingly and but that was a long process to slowly get them to get to that point.

Speaker 1:

But at the same time that person's no longer kind of who they are. At that point, right, they basically what people call like brainwash. You know they've kind of manipulated them enough slowly at a time and and you know you can do that to get someone to tell you a piece of information. But you know, plugging them up to a machine or saying, oh, I saw the their brow furrow and they started sweating and they're lying and this is my part Like it's like, look man, like there could be a lot going on that you don't know about, so I'd like to be the defense expert on that unusual.

Speaker 1:

Oh yeah, well, that's with all of these. I was just like, because I was watching one with mckaylee and she's asked me these different questions about it. I was like. I was like, literally this person. All they need to do is like, hey, I'm done talking, I need a lawyer, charge me or let me go and I go, this is all over. Then it's done. It's done and it's it. Now they're going to detain them, they're going to try to go to trial and put a case together, but but they could stop at any time.

Speaker 2:

Exactly and so. So let's bolster your argument, because you're spot on again, and let's go to the law. What does the law say? Well, you know again. Film buff. So Harrison Ford 90s, air Force One Great, get off of my plane Not without my family, you know. That's my Harrison Ford, by the way, and it doesn't sound like Gilbert Gottfried for a change. But during that film he stays, rather than taking the escape pod as the president on the plane that's been hijacked by terrorists.

Speaker 2:

And then what do we have? We have Article 25 of the Constitution that says listen, in that extreme environment, the president no longer is making good decisions, so he's no longer the president. So if we've got that written into the constitution to make sure that he's not making shitty decisions because he wants to save his daughter, okay. And what's a deathbed confession? Deathbed confession is a legal opinion that says, listen, this person knows they're going to die and they're going to confess about it, so we're going to admit that in court. As a matter of fact, it would be hearsay evidence, but it rises to another standard. So if that person and and you know, I want to get something off my chest, yeah, I'm sitting there with blood, I just killed my old lady, I lit the house on fire. I did all these other things I'm going to tell go, yeah, you know what you got me. I'm not. I'd love people to write in about those stories. I bet we get four out of the hundred thousand that they've done Right.

Speaker 2:

And so how can we use it, brian? I say go to the science. The science, the data shows that American Americans largely believe that polygraphs are accurate. So here we're talking about street law again and, brian, when you send out the paperwork in there, there's a study that showed that 70% of Americans that were polled said yeah, it's a reliable, useful technique for detecting lies. So use that against the person and get a registered, certified polygraph examiner to render their opinion. And if the person's lying, go in and tell them. Look, you volunteered the polygraph and it shows you're being deceptive.

Speaker 2:

Now let's start a new conversation. Let's you and I sit down, I'll get you a Coke and you tell me what really happened. Brian, that's a great attention getter and it's legal to use it's deceptive in a manner, because you're not scientifically 100%. But if 70% of the population believes it's true, use it. We still have people that watch the video and say, oh, that's a ghost on a broom flying across Mexico. No offense to my Mexican friend, but it's all horseshit. So when you go to a funeral and sadly you, so, so, uh, when you go to a funeral and sadly you you just came back from one when you go to a funeral, I would suggest, brian, that everybody that listens to us does the Brian test. Do you hear gossip? Of course you do. Do you hear rumors? Do you hear everybody's uh, uh, third or fourth generation theory on why it happened? Brian, of all the funerals you've been to and all that shit that you've heard, how much of it was true or played out or had a scientific underpinning? Come on.

Speaker 1:

Right, it's almost done. But that kind of goes into our desire sort of as humans, to establish causal relationships between things I have to understand why this occurred and what happened.

Speaker 1:

And we don't like I always talk about on here, we don't like uncertainty, humans are not good with uncertainty. And so we have to sort of say, well, this is I, I need, I need, I need a storyline here, I need to know what happened and which is normal, and and then so we attribute those things to it, that that had nothing. It's that fundamental attribution error and then confirmation bias. But the idea is, yeah, they're, they're looking for some sort of you know, what was the what, what caused this to happen? I was like, and a lot of times it's like, look, there's, there's a number of contributing factors that that coalesce together at this time and place which created this outcome, and had one of those not been there, that outcome may have been different, or maybe it was the same, but it may have been different. Yeah, that's enough. That standard difference is enough.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, so if I look at all that stuff as sort of like the relationship between things just versus the story of what happened and the facts and the detailed timeline, it's like, well, how did these all relate to one another? That's when you get into oh man, it's a little murky, or oh, I can establish the relationship. So now that makes sense. But it's rarely that you're going to get a definitive answer when it comes to something like deception. Now I always say kids are always great to use because they are not as good as adults at lying Right, and so they have.

Speaker 2:

And they'll stick with that lie, Brian.

Speaker 1:

They'll have a longer timeline and that's like the insurgent, because she's stubborn like her mom, and then so I'll get her tripped up on something. It's hilarious, and then she'll stick to that and go back to it and then just freak out Well, it's only because. And then just completely flip flop, I was like all right, so we know that's not what happened, so but it's it's, it's obvious. Because they're not as good at it they're, they're slow, they can't come up with a quick story right away.

Speaker 2:

Because they don't, brian. What do they not have? They don't have the timeline, they don't have the baseline, they don't have the experiential, and that's why shitty barracks, lawyers and crappy former penitentiary members when they come out, that's why they talk a lot, oh yeah, and this and that. Because they've got it down, brian, they know exactly what you need to hear. Yeah well, I'm not going to tell you this, but if you give me the DAs, whatever, I'll disclose. Who else was there, brian? They're masters of it.

Speaker 1:

Your kids aren't, though, and it's fun, because then you can play with that a little bit, right? Yeah, I was a great barracks lawyer when I was in the Marine Corps and people would say stuff. No, that's a violation of a UCMJ article, whatever, and I'd just make something up. They're like, well, I didn't know that. And I was like, well, it's because it's not real, I just made that up, oh you. God, that's horrible.

Speaker 2:

Let's do it this way. Let's go back to science for just a minute on your hypothesis that you just threw out. So you know that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that if you're suspected of a DUI that you have to submit the roadsides. Now you say I'm not going to do the roadsides, okay, that alone can be used against you in court. Now you have the choice between a breathalyzer or a blood test. Okay, and in some instances, like an accident, you don't have a choice. I choose.

Speaker 2:

But the idea is that that stuff is all admissible in court and it's all evidence, it's tangible artifacts that I can show to court. Here's your blood alcohol. When we talk about a lie detector or polygraph, it's voluntary. Well, would you take one? Okay, so the idea just of it being voluntary shows the low standard that the law puts on it. And you're saying, yeah, then why would the states allow it? Certain states allow it in very narrow capers and in very narrow use. When you testify to it and I'll tell you, it's the first thing that a defense attorney is going to go after Try to get the defense attorney to go after the blood test results. He has to go after the alcohol swab and the officer wasn't trained and it was dark that night. And the 50,000 blood tests the hospital did in the last 24 hours, some of them were messed up. You get what I'm trying to say that I have to build that moment of doubt into the jury With a lie detector?

Speaker 2:

Not so much. Okay, now, even saying that you failed. The lie detector is inadmissible in most courts. You get what I'm trying to say. So can you use it as a tool to open dialogue in some? And look, you know what? There was probably a million lie detector tests administered in the United States last year. Good on you, good for you. But what is your cost benefit analysis and what is your success ratio? And it still hasn't been proven scientifically?

Speaker 1:

Yeah, no, I just saw a good one where we were talking about kind of use cases for it when it was a one of my buddies and it was a background investigation for a government agency and you know and same thing. So it gets as soon as polygraph and then, like you know, quarter of the way through the, the polygraph examiner stops and goes hey, you know what? Let's, let's stop for a second, let's let break and let's go grab some water, maybe a cup of coffee real quick, and sit down and talk. It's like okay. So he goes to the bathroom, grabs some water. He's like the guy goes look, man, we're going to start over. Here's the thing. I'm not here to disqualify you for this job.

Speaker 2:

I'm here to make sure that you're being honest with the answers.

Speaker 1:

You're giving the answers don't matter, and and so. So I don't care how many times you did cocaine when you were in college. Okay, I'm here to see if you're being honest about how many times you did cocaine in college.

Speaker 1:

Are you ready to begin this again? And he was like, yeah, okay, so he started in past and, you know, got hired or whatever. But it's just a hilarious story because, like I was like, look man, like you're, you're pinging so hot all over the place on this thing. He's like it's not what this is about, like this is what this is for, you know. And he was like, all right, got it and and you know, but but it's, that's different. Obviously, in answered the questions and then they're going back to see what your answers are in person to those questions. Right, I mean, they already have the baseline you provided. Have you ever done any of these things? What's your history here? Did you live here? What happened here? What was this? And then they put you up to that and ask you those again. They're like, okay, like you know, are you matching up or what's going on here to see if there's a difference? So it's a fine thing.

Speaker 1:

You're measuring it, you're using it as a measurement tool for a specific purpose. So I just like it's one. It's a funny story, but it's also kind of how you can use this stuff.

Speaker 2:

So we'll get that to in a very controlled context that everybody in the audience will understand. So my son, nico, was the master. So, nico, go, brush your teeth, come down, we'll say our prayers. Time to go to bed.

Speaker 2:

And so Nico would go up and dick around with his Legos, or he would build something with you know one of his things. And then I'd yell at him and then finally, I had to start walking up the steps to get him to do something Right. So then it was like bring me your toothbrush. And he caught on immediately that his toothbrush was dry, You're lying. You didn't brush your teeth. And then he'd sulk back upstairs, brush his teeth. So then what? When I asked him, bring me your toothbrush, he'd bring me the wet toothbrush. It's just dripping water, dripping all the way down the stairs. I go okay, now breathe. And he goes what? I go, breathe, let me smell your breath. And now you learned, hey, to put the two.

Speaker 2:

Nico was fighting every step of me being the dad in the situation by. If he would have just brushed his teeth, he would have got over within a minute and go get back to play. But he had to go through all of these steps to deceive me. Okay. So the great thing was it was easy, because I could see the pattern of deception and I understood the why. Okay. So if you get the how, the why becomes so much more evident and people don't. There's no investigative agency in the United States that just throws a you know, census is hanging on the wall and they just throw a dart at the sense and and go it's this guy, juan Johnson. You know what I'm saying? He's the murderer. There's got to be evidence that inculpated you in some manner at the beginning. And could this be a way? Yeah, but stop believing in the shite and go back to the science. How many blood tests are inconclusive? How many breath tests are inconclusive? But then how many lie detector tests are inconclusive? I just say weigh that.

Speaker 1:

And again.

Speaker 2:

You know Brian's goal and my goal is not to poke fun at you or poke you in the eye if that's what you do for a living, but we're just saying, in the greater scheme of things, that is only one small part of the entire investigative process and we just don't spend a lot of time investigative process and we just don't spend a lot of time adding credibility to that. I give it the same amount of credibility as the insider threat testing that I have to do to keep my security clean. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Where it's? Hey, let's see if you can pass out Exactly. And there's a guy peeking around the curb.

Speaker 1:

You're right. Yeah, hey, click on the photo of the boat and see I lying co-worker bill. Your co-worker bill recently bought an expensive boat. What should you do? No, you're exactly right and it's been the same forever it has been. But uh, but no, it's, um, it's good. Yeah, that's the toothbrush. One is the, that's the uncle buck, one where he's watching the kids john candy, and he does that, you know I got a buddy here with the crime lab and I can send him your toothbrush and he'll be able to tell whether or not you actually brush your teeth.

Speaker 1:

The two kids are staring at each other like ah.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, exactly that's the thing I mean. We believe, what we want to believe, and if it had a substantial underpinning of science, then all states would be allowing it and it would be somewhere in the legal.

Speaker 1:

And here's, here's sort of like my my big takeaways on this one is that you know, you, you can, you can. You're going to likely feel like, okay, I think that this person is likely deceiving me in some manner. Okay, Well, it don't rely on some, some nebulous or subjective you know indicator. Go on what you know about the situation and then compare it to them. I mean, that's as simple as what I tell people. Okay, write down what this person said, right, and then draw a line on the paper on the other side, write down what they actually did, and if there's some incongruence there, then you've got something, and if, again, it's one of those things, it's the sprinkle on top to go all right, now I'm 95 confident now.

Speaker 1:

Now I'm 99.9 confident. You know, whatever it, whatever it is, you can't take it and start there and going. I think this is happening, or, or if you do and you go, I think they're being deceptive. But now I have to find out why or what about or what the issue is. It's not just going, just going off of that. I just think that it goes back to the. Give me the list of indicators and things I need to look for. It doesn't exist. It's different for everyone.

Speaker 2:

Brian, I say throw out the incongruent standard. For example, unless you're a surgeon, that's on call for a hospital. You don't have two phones. You have two phones because you're being deceptive. If you've got a phone for the detective bureau and your personal phone, that's a different thing where everybody in that situation has that.

Speaker 2:

Because you can show, you can demonstrate that, hey, it was a part of the thing that I was issued, so don't get suspicious. But all of a sudden, if you're a street thug and you don't even have a job, but you got those two phones, something's wrong. But what's the next thing? Check your fuel. Okay, fuel costs different money, so the money doesn't help, but the gallons of fuel going back and forth to work don't change. Now, right now, in Colorado, that would be different because the bridge is out, so it's seven hours instead of the hour. Yeah, but listen, if you're just going to work and coming back and all of a sudden your times are off, and then I look and you're getting three times the amount of gas.

Speaker 1:

You're filling up with gas more, yeah.

Speaker 2:

You're doing a meet me, meet me.

Speaker 1:

Somewhere else. You're going somewhere else, yes.

Speaker 2:

So the idea is, those are tangible and those are. What we talk about. Is artifacts or evidence? Artifacts the thing I can hold up, Evidence, the thing I can point to and say take a look at this, this is very demonstrative that somebody's lying to you. And then you come up to them, you go why are you using three times as much gas? And the person goes okay, well, I got to tell you I still been visiting dad at the hospital. That fits. Okay, I got it. I am sorry that I asked you about that. You don't have to lie about that. I'll drive with you next time. So the idea is that the difference between a mistake and a lie is intent. So if you remember that, starting off the bat, there's a lot of evidence out there that you can get to without this electronic chicanery.

Speaker 1:

So I'll again, like for the Patreon folks, I'll have that PDF on there you can take a look at and we'll jump into some more of those in different episodes. I think we'll kind of keep this as a recurring thing of some common myths, because there's a bunch out there, but I kind of want to categorize some of them and do them together. You'll see, for those listeners who subscribe to patreon, like this is, you know, we'll look at the science and what, what really happened. And then what you what's cool about is you get to kind of see the quantum leap of logic that occurs where people from outside that who don't know that or were part of that study or weren't in that field, go oh, I see, then then that must mean this over here and it's like and that's where things go off the rails. Yes, that's where it goes completely off the rails.

Speaker 1:

Else what happens in a lab or in a controlled environment or in a study is not directly. You know, I can't directly conceptualize that in every single encounter that I'm in right, it's not necessarily true, it's only within those given parameters or those given factors that were involved with that. So it's just to be careful with any of that stuff. So I think that's a good spot to end on. I mean we covered a lot with any of that stuff, so I think that's a good spot to end on. I mean we covered a lot with the different deceptions.

Speaker 2:

Well, let me just throw a challenge out to the audience. In the next 24 hours, I want you to use the Greg-ism electronic chicanery, but you have to say it to somebody in the course of your day and you'll get a smile. You'll get a smile, Trust me.

Speaker 1:

On that note, thanks everyone for tuning in, and don't forget that training changes behavior. That's all for today, folks. Thank you so much for tuning in. We do appreciate it. If you'd like more information or deeper dive on anything that we talked about, you can always sign up at our Patreon site or reach out to us at thehumanbehaviorpodcast at gmailcom.

Deception Detection and Myths in Psychology
Media Influence on Beliefs and Behavior
Detecting Deception and Misinterpretation
Deception, Polygraph, and Human Behavior
Understanding Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence
Deception and Interrogation Techniques
False Beliefs, Deception, and Lie Detector
Identifying Deception Through Behavioral Cues
Challenge to Use Greg-Ism for Smiles