Post: #1

I've been reading a blog on this for about 3 months now and have found it an infinitely useful skill that very few people are aware of. This is what professional lie detectors use to attempt to discern truth. I'll let you guys check it out yourselves. Read some of the back content, this guy has posted a wealth of information. What brought me to the subject in the first place was Amanda Knox, the crazy American Seattle bitch who murdered her sexy Italian roommate.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com

Amanda Knox recent analysis(the original one is somewhere in the archives):
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2...peaks.html

Post: #2

I've been following that blog for quite some time as well. It's pretty legit. Another good blog is http://blog.eyesforlies.com/ she is a natural lie detector but she doesn't only use statement analysis but other behavioral cues as well.

Post: #3

This looks like cold-reading turned into a pseudo-science.

If these people could really detect lies then they would be able to earn millions by turning it into a teachable skill, selling their knowledge to corporations, taking on researchers for money etc.


It's as 'valid' a technique as criminal profiling, which combines stereotypes and guesswork with all the enthusiasm of a seaside fortune teller, except packaged up in a way that seems more plausible to reasonable folks.

One of Gladwell's best articles covered this type of thinking.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #4

It's not a pseudo-science. Truth wizards, which are people who have been tested by science and have been found to have the exceptional ability to detect lies use statement analysis as part of their repertoire in discovering lies.

"The late Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan from the University of San Francisco, along with renowned expert Dr. Paul Ekman, completed a scientific study called The Wizards Project, which identified 50 people with an exceptional ability to spot lies after testing more than 15,000 people over a 20 year span. They call these people “Truth Wizards” (wizard meaning ‘sage’, a person of amazing skill or accomplishment). These experts are not mystic or psychic. They rely on concrete clues to deception that when pointed out most people can see clearly. The question is why do most people miss the clues initially and only a select few see them. Science has yet to answer this question."

Post: #5

(09-02-2014 10:56 PM)EagleMan Wrote:  It's not a pseudo-science. Truth wizards, which are people who have been tested by science and have been found to have the exceptional ability to detect lies use statement analysis as part of their repertoire in discovering lies.

"The late Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan from the University of San Francisco, along with renowned expert Dr. Paul Ekman, completed a scientific study called The Wizards Project, which identified 50 people with an exceptional ability to spot lies after testing more than 15,000 people over a 20 year span. They call these people “Truth Wizards” (wizard meaning ‘sage’, a person of amazing skill or accomplishment). These experts are not mystic or psychic. They rely on concrete clues to deception that when pointed out most people can see clearly. The question is why do most people miss the clues initially and only a select few see them. Science has yet to answer this question."

Just because someone is good at spotting liars doesn't mean their explanations are correct. It's there in the quote that they don't know what the methods are, or even if they match up between different people.


50 people out of 15,000 good at spotting lies seems pretty easy to match. I'm sure you could find 50 chimpanzees out of 15,000 that would be able to do something really well.

I'm willing to accept that microexpressions may be useful (although looking at the certification course costs raises red flags), but the most replicable research was on macroexpressions, and their cross-cultural validity.

This guy raised his doubts to her and got some seriously off-kilter stuff in response:

Quote:I would also like to know a little about your background. You have no obligation to answer my questions but I would think you would want the record to be clear.

Were you tested only once by Dr. Paul Ekman and Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan?
Where are the results of that test or those tests?
Are you currently associated with Dr. Paul Ekman in any way?
Has Dr. Ekman he ever publicly endorsed your work on your website?
Are you self taught or have you studied techniques of others to incorporate into your skill set? You mentioned in your interview that you have had no specific schooling.

In the past you suggested that someone could send you photos of their face and you could do an analysis by simply looking at a photo. What exactly can you decipher from a photo?

The FBI and others say that microexpressions can be used as a tool. I agree with this. They can lead investigators to ask further questions to try and acquire additional information. Microexpressions have the ability to provide leads. No conclusions can be drawn from expressions alone. Do you agree with this?

If you agree, how can you vilify Amanda Knox on your website based solely on a video clip?

Her response:

Quote: Bruce -- If only you could see how your words reveal your true feelings. They are like beacons in the night. You want me to believe you have true intentions that are pure, but your words say otherwise. I should analyze all the holes in your story. You'd be a great subject to dissect on the blog, but I will spare you the embarrassment.

Before you contact the others, do yourself a favor and get educated, because if you don't, you are likely not to get a response. It only makes you look foolish.

Focus on you, your strengths and what you can do and stop focusing on others. It only makes you look ugly and bitter. Do better for yourself!"

That is not the way a normal person would respond, and you don't need to be a certified truth wizard to see that. It's not far from what Uri Geller would say.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #6

I believe these natural lie detectors are good at seeing patterns in people's behavior, and they pick up on subtle things that over 99% of the population aren't aware of.


You should read this:

http://gladwell.com/the-naked-face/

Post: #7

(08-29-2014 10:12 PM)EagleMan Wrote:  I've been following that blog for quite some time as well. It's pretty legit. Another good blog is http://blog.eyesforlies.com/ she is a natural lie detector but she doesn't only use statement analysis but other behavioral cues as well.

Thanks for the link, I took a quick look over her page and as Benoit says she is certainly selling her more 'professional' services, though she does offer plenty of free information in her blog posts.

Truth detection has existed since biblical days, as is mentioned on occasion in the Statement Analysis blog I posted, though now people are analyzing why it works. It reminds me of the work Dick Bandler and John Grinder did in Frogs Into Princes in regards to NLP. If you haven't read that, it's in my top 3-5 as an absolute must read for lifestyle improvement.