Major mistakes and precautions

Usually, the liars perfectly manage to deceive most people ^[109] . Even children who are barely eight or nine years old (and some parents even think six!) Can quite successfully deceive their elders. And mistakes in revealing falsehood suggest not only that the person believes the deceiver, but, much worse, and that he does not believe the speaker who speaks the truth. And such mistakes can cause a serious injury to a sincere child, despite all subsequent attempts to rectify the situation. Disbelief of truth also brings a lot of misfortune to an adult. You can lose a friend, work, and even life. It happens that a person who has spent many years in prison, suddenly turns out to be innocent - but, thank God, such cases do happen quite rarely. In short, since it is not possible to completely avoid errors in detecting fraud, it is necessary to take all precautions to reduce the number of these errors as much as possible.
And the first of these measures is to interpret behavioral signs as accurately as possible. The information I have given in the two previous chapters — about how a person, body, voice, and speech can betray deception — still does not in any way guarantee against making wrong judgments, but only helps to identify and correct them. The verifiers no longer need to rely only on their own intuition or intuition; Having full knowledge of the basis of their judgments, they will try, correct, refuse and think over specific signs more confidently and calmly. Indeed, in the case of the existence of some vagueness, the possibility of a false accusation significantly increases.
The second measure is to strive to understand as clearly as possible the nature of the errors that occur in the process of detecting lies. There are two kinds of such errors, directly opposite to each other, both for reasons and for consequences. Making a mistake of disbelief of truth, the verifier mistakenly takes the speaker to be a liar, and in the case of an error of faith lies he mistakenly believes that the liar is telling the truth ^[110] .
And the verifier is vulnerable to both of these errors, alas, regardless of whether he works with a lie detector or with behavioral signs of deception. Recall once again the passage I quoted in Chapter 1, “Lies. Information Leakage and Some Other Signs of Deception,” from Updike's Let's Get Married novel when Jerry overhears his wife's phone conversation with Ruth and her lover. Noticing that her voice sounds more feminine than in conversations with him, Jerry asks who it is. Ruth immediately writes a reply that a woman from a Sunday school called asking if they would carry children there. If Jerry had believed this story, he would obviously have made the mistake of believing lies. But suppose the opposite: Ruth is a faithful wife and did speak to a woman from a Sunday school, and Jerry is her jealous and incredulous husband. And if Jerry had decided that his wife was lying while she was telling the truth, he would have made the mistake of not believing the truth.
During the Second World War, Hitler made the mistake of believing lies, and Stalin, on the contrary, made the mistake of disbelieving the truth. For various reasons (imitation of concentration of troops, rumors, false information about military plans transmitted to German intelligence officers, etc.) the Allies convinced the Reich that their invasion of Europe, the opening of the so-called second front would occur not on the Normandy coast, but in Kale. For six weeks after the start of the operation, the Germans persisted in their mistake and kept a large number of troops in Calais, instead of helping their defeating army in Normandy, for they stubbornly continued to believe that the landing force was only a sabotage prelude to the attack in Calais! It was a clear mistake of believing a lie; the Germans believed that they knew the true plan of the Allies, while he was only a well-fabricated deception. The lie was mistaken for the truth.
The opposite mistake was Stalin’s refusal to believe in numerous warnings that Germany was about to attack the Soviet Union; even though this information came directly from his agents in Germany. This was a mistake of disbelief of truth - Stalin did not believe that Hitler would deceive him. The distinction between these two errors is extremely important, because it forces the verifier to focus on two of these similarly similar hazards. It is impossible to completely avoid both errors; the choice is only to choose the least dangerous of them at the moment. The verifier must evaluate for himself when it is preferable to be deceived, and when - to make a false accusation. What can be lost and what to gain by suspecting an innocent person or believing a liar — all of this depends on the lie itself, and on the liar, and on the verifier. Usually, the consequences of only one of these mistakes are more severe, but sometimes they are both equally terrible.
There is no general rule about what kind of mistakes are easier to avoid. Sometimes the chances in both cases are approximately equal, sometimes one or the other is preferable. And again, it depends on the nature of the lie, the liar and the verifier. Those questions that the verifier should consider in order to decide what to take the risk are described at the end of the next chapter after discussing the lie detector and comparing the results of its use with the results of using behavioral signs. Now I will describe how each of the behavioral signs is vulnerable to these two errors and what precautions should be taken to avoid them.
First, special attention should be paid to individual differences (Brokaw's trap is ignoring individual differences in human behavior). Not a single sign of deception, be it a face, body, voice or words, is proof of deception, nor is the change in VNS activity recorded by the lie detector. Mistakes of faith lie here because some people do not allow mistakes at all when they lie. These are not only psychopaths, but also congenital liars, as well as people using the Stanislavsky system, and those who sincerely believe in their lies. And the verifier must always remember that the absence of signs of deception is not yet proof of truthfulness.
But the presence of such signs, too, can be misleading, forcing to commit another mistake, the mistakes of disbelief of truth (the truthful person is accused of lying). Signs of fraud can deftly use a fraudster, creating in his victim an erroneous conviction that he fell for his lies. This technique is constantly used by poker players (in their jargon, it is called a “false signal”). “For example, a player can cough long and carefully when bluffing. He (the opponent, considering himself astute, will immediately link this cough with the situation of the bluff. And at the crucial moment of the game, when the stakes are wound up to the limit, the deceiver can begin to cough again - this time without bluffing - and thus unexpectedly snatch the victory from the enemy ” ^[111] .
In this example, the poker player uses the error of disbelief of truth, drawing the conclusion from what is considered to be a cheat. However, much more often a person incorrectly identified as a liar suffers, and does not rejoice. And he considers some people to be liars not for slyness, but for their bizarre manner of behavior and peculiarity of speech. That for others may be a clear sign of deception, for them it is not. And nothing can be done about it; It must be remembered that some people:

• speak confusedly and verbally;
• speak with long or short pauses;
• make a lot of speech mistakes;
• use few illustrations in speech;
• they often show signs of fear, anguish, and anger, regardless of whether they actually have these feelings or not;
• have a tendency to asymmetric facial expressions.

The behavior of people is infinitely diverse, and these differences give rise not only to errors of disbelief of truth, but also errors of faith lies. To call the person speaking the truth, but constantly confused and verbose person a liar, is to make the mistake of not believing the truth; to call a deceitful deceitful talker truthful means to fall into the error of faith of lies. Even if the latter’s speech at deception can be somewhat confusing, it is still able to avoid detection, for it will still be much smoother than most people.
To reduce the likelihood of errors associated with the trap Brokau, you need to strive to make judgments based only on changes in the behavior of the suspect. The verifier must necessarily compare the usual behavior of the suspect and his behavior after the suspicion in his address is expressed openly. People are often deceived when they first meet precisely because they have no opportunity to compare and thus notice changes in the behavior of another. Absolute judgments (for example: he makes so many manipulations, which means he hides something unpleasant), and in general, as a rule, turn out to be wrong. Judgments are relative (such as: he makes more manipulations than usual, which means that for some reason he is uncomfortable) represent the only way to reduce the number of errors of unbelief in truth, due to individual differences in human behavior. Experienced poker players follow this practice, remembering the peculiar “signals” (signs of deception) of their regular partners ^[112] .
If the verifier needs to pass judgment on the first meeting, then it should last long enough for him to be able to observe the usual behavior of the suspect. For this you can, for example, try to start focusing on calm topics. However, it happens that such a conversation is impossible, and for a suspect who is indignant or afraid, the whole environment is already stress. In this case, any verifier must be clearly aware that Brokau may be trapped.
First meetings are especially vulnerable to making wrong judgments also because there are differences in how people react to them. Some try to behave according to the situation, remembering the well-learned rules of decency, and therefore demonstrate a completely atypical behavior. For others, the first meeting is alarming, and their behavior is also atypical, although for other reasons. In a word, if possible, the verifier should base his judgments on a number of meetings in order to check as thoroughly as possible all the arguments necessary for the final conclusion. Sometimes it even seems that finding a lie is easier when people are not only familiar, but close; Alas, this is not always the case. Lovers, family members, friends or close friends may have prejudices or just close their eyes to something, and this certainly prevents the accurate interpretation of behavioral signs of deception.
The Brokawan trap is not so dangerous when interpreting the following four sources of information leakage: speech and emblematic reservations, emotional tirades and micro-expressions. Comparison is not necessary for their evaluation, because they make sense by themselves. Recall an example from Freud, when Dr. R. allegedly described someone’s divorce: “I know one nanny who was involved as a co-defendant in a divorce case. The wife filed a lawsuit against her husband and called her a correspondent, and he got a divorce. ” Of course, it was necessary to know the laws about the divorce of that time, so that, under Dr. R.’s reservation, he understood that he himself was the husband in this story (the only reason for divorce was adultery, only the deceived party could apply for divorce, and only the deceived party received case of divorce is permanent and quite decent content). But even without knowing this reservation, “he” instead of “she” is understandable and significant in itself: the doctor wanted the husband to get the divorce, not the wife. Reservations are not pauses that can be attracted as attributes only when their number changes; Reservations are always taken into account, regardless of the frequency of occurrence.
The same applies to micro-expressions, emblematic reservations and tirades - information leaks through them. Recall an example from my experiment with students when a girl showed her professor finger a finger (emblematic reservation). These are not illustrations that can be assessed only by comparing the frequency of their use in extreme and ordinary situations. The value of the exposed finger in America, and so everyone knows. And since this is an emblematic reservation (that is, only part of the emblematic movement that is usually demonstrated), the finger shown could be easily interpreted as detecting those feelings that the student wanted to hide. The situation is the same with Mary's microexpressions, patients of a psychiatric clinic who concealed her plans for suicide; they could be interpreted without any preliminary observations of her behavior. The fact that sadness was expressed in part, not in full, showed that Mary was trying to hide her. But although the information obtained through reservations, tirades and micro-expressions makes sense in itself, for the sake of completeness, a speech context is, of course, necessary.
These four sources of information leakage are not similar to other signs of deception in one respect: here, to avoid errors of disbelief of truth, the verifier does not need to be compared. There is no need for the verifier to worry about the misinterpretation of reservations, microexpressions or tirades when they first meet only because his interlocutor may turn out to be a person who often shows them in general. On the contrary, the verifier can be said to be lucky if the suspect turned out to be the person who is prone to reservations, tirades or microexpressions. However, if in this case, and there is no need for prior acquaintance to avoid errors of unbelief of truth, the precautions to reduce the likelihood of errors of faith lies, the same. Moreover, the absence of these or any other signs of deception cannot be unambiguously interpreted as evidence that a person is telling the truth. After all, not every liar admits reservations, micro-expressions or tirades.
So, we have considered so far only one source of errors in the detection of lies - the result of inattention to the individual differences in the behavior of the suspect, that is, the trap Brokaw. Another equally serious source of concern, leading to the commission of errors of unbelief of truth, is the error of Othello. It happens when the verifier does not believe the truthful, stressful person. Any of the emotions about lies (see Chapter 2 "Why lies sometimes fail") and leading to a leak of information, can be experienced for other reasons in those moments when an honest person is suspected of lying. True people are often afraid that they will not be believed, and the fear experienced by them is very easily confused with the fear of exposing a liar. Other people feel so guilty about completely different reasons that this feeling can emerge at any moment, especially if they are suspected of deception or of doing something illegal. And signs of such guilt are easily confused with remorse of conscience, sometimes arising from a liar. In addition, truthful people may feel strong contempt or excitement, or even pleasure in anticipation that all charges will soon turn out to be false, towards those who accuse them - and these emotions can be easily mistaken for a delight of cheating. It can also be easily experienced by both deceivers and honest people who are under suspicion and all other feelings, despite the fact that the sources of all these feelings will be completely different; Any liar and anyone who speaks the truth may experience surprise, anger, disappointment, suffering, or disgust, both with respect to the charge and the verifier himself.
I called it the mistake of Othello, for the scene from the tragedy of Shakespeare is perhaps the most brilliant and most famous example of it. Moor had just accused his wife of treason with Cassio and demanded full recognition; otherwise he threatened to die for monstrous betrayal. Desdemona asks Cassio to be brought in so that he can testify her innocence, to which her husband informs her that he has already been killed by him. Then she realizes all the hopelessness of her position: it is impossible to prove innocence, Othello will still kill her.

Desdemona: Trouble! He is falsely slandered, I died. Othello: Minx, how dare you when I sob about him? Desdemona: They drove me into exile, But leave me to live! Othello: Cheater, die!

Othello believes that Desdemona’s fear and suffering are a reaction to the news of the death of her lover, and this only confirms his confidence. Othello does not understand that, being innocent, the wife can also show the same emotions: suffering and despair, because of his unbelief, because of the impossibility of justifying himself and being afraid before an inevitable death. Desdemona can cry about her life, her grief, that Othello no longer believes her, and not about her lost lover.
Othello's error is an excellent example of how preconceived opinions can create prejudicial judgments with a verifier. Othello is convinced of his wife’s unfaithfulness even before she enters the bedroom, and therefore ignores any other explanations for her behavior, does not consider that they can prove the exact opposite. He is looking only for confirmation of his suspicions, not even trying to actually check whether Desdemona is really guilty. Of course, Othello is an extreme example, however, preconceived opinions often lead to incorrect conclusions, forcing the verifier to neglect considerations, opportunities or facts that do not correspond to his already established point of view. Othello suffers from the lies of his beloved wife, but this does not make him go in another direction and try to justify her. He interprets Desdemona's behavior only with regard to confirming suspicions, however painful they may be.
Such preconceptions, distorting judgments and leading to the commission of errors of unbelief in truth, can occur for many reasons. Othello's conviction of his wife’s unfaithfulness was the work of Iago, his mortal enemy, seeking for his own benefit the fall of the Moor and therefore creating and nourishing his darkest thoughts. But Yago might not have succeeded in his intentions if Othello had not been so jealous. And jealous people sometimes do not even need Iago - their jealousy ignites on its own and pushes on any actions, if only to confirm the worst fears and convict the whole world of deception. Distrustful people make terrible verifiers who are completely subject to the errors of disbelief of truth. The credulous people, as a rule, fall into the opposite extreme and constantly make mistakes of falsehood, sometimes without even knowing that they are being deceived.
But when the stakes are high, when the lie of the suspect can be very expensive, then even far from jealous people often come to the wrong conclusions. When the verifier is angry or fearful of the humiliation that awaits him if his worst suspicions are justified, he can ignore everything that could deceive him and seeks to increase his suffering. He would rather agree to accept the humiliation now than later, when he suddenly found out that he was still wrong. It is better to suffer now than to prolong the torture of ignorance. An unfoundedly jealous husband is much more afraid of believing lies than not believing the truth. But the choice here is not rational; the verifier himself falls prey to what I call the flash of blinding. Emotions are out of control and require new and new food; not weakening with time, as it happens in ordinary cases, but, on the contrary, growing stronger. Everything that feeds these terrible feelings and increases their destructive power is used. It is difficult to convince a person who is in such an emotional hell - he no longer wants anything else, and with all his actions only strengthens his experiences, whatever they are, turning fear into horror, anger into rage, dislike into disgust, and suffering - in grief. This flash absorbs everything that comes its way: objects, thoughts, loved ones and itself — and no one usually knows the reason why it arose and when it will end. It is only known that there are people who are subject to such blinding flashes to a greater degree than others. And such people, of course, are monstrous judges, only seeing in everything that brings only greater and greater suffering.
But on the whole, the committing of the errors of disbelief of truth (that is, belief in non-existent deception) is not due to flashes of blindness, jealousy, or any Iago. In most cases, people tend to suspect deception because deception is the most impressive and convenient explanation for a mysterious and baffling world. Here is what a man who has worked for 28 years at the CIA writes: “People generally prefer to explain everything by deception, since such an explanation is quite rational. When other explanations are unavailable (and often only because we simply do not know something or have already made a lot of mistakes ourselves), deception seems to be the most convenient and simple of them. Convenient because intelligence officers are generally very vulnerable in matters of truth and falsehood and the detection of deception is often taken as an indicator of a thorough logical analysis ... But simply because in practice almost any fact can be interpreted as evidence of deception. After all, we all know very well that if someone suspected a deception, it’s almost impossible to reassure him of it ” ^[113] .
And these observations are correct not only in relation to the work of the police or intelligence. One has only to consider that his child, father, friend or partner has gone out of trust, errors of unbelief in truth become almost inevitable; deception is suspected everywhere and everywhere, because a person is trying to explain the inexplicable. Because, once it has arisen, prejudice begins systematically to cut off all the information that could refute it.
The verifier should strive to clearly be aware of the possibility of their own bias towards the suspect. And it does not matter exactly how these preconceived opinions appear: due to a person’s character, a flash of blindness, fatigue, the need to get rid of uncertainty, past experience, information and considerations of others; if they are realized and understood, the verifier still has a chance to defeat them and get rid of a one-sided interpretation of the facts. In the extreme case, the verifier is able to at least understand that he is a victim of his own prejudices, and not make hasty judgments about the suspect.
The verifier should never forget the possibility that an emotion is not a sign of deception, but only a reaction to the suspicion of it. The verifier must justify what emotions the suspect will likely experience, not only when lying, but, more importantly, when telling the truth. In this case, one should not forget that not every liar will necessarily have any feelings during a fraud, just as the truthful one will not always be emotionally excited due to an undeserved accusation. In Chapter 2, “Why a lie sometimes fails,” we looked at how to establish what the suspect was experiencing: fear of exposure, remorse, or ecstasy of fraud. Now let's look at how the verifier can determine the emotions that a true person experiences.
It should immediately be said here that the verifier can assess these feelings only on the basis of knowledge of the identity of the suspect himself. At the beginning of this chapter, I talked about how important it is to reduce the number of errors based on first impressions, prior acquaintance and knowledge of how a person’s behavior may change depending on the circumstances. Now we need a completely different kind of knowledge. The verifier needs to know the emotional characteristics of the suspect in order not to consider signs of deception of the suspect's true emotions. Not everyone, when they are suddenly suspected of lying or wrongful acts, is prone to experience fear, guilt, anger, and so on. It largely depends on the identity of the suspect.
A person who is confident in his own infallibility, being accused of lying, can be indignant, but he will not experience any fear or guilt. Fearful, insecure and accustomed to failures, may be frightened, but will not feel either guilt or indignation. And about those who feel themselves and so constantly guilty of everything, we have already spoken a little higher; such people rarely experience fear, anger, surprise, suffering, or arousal. In short, the verifier should not consider emotions as a sure sign of deception, even if the suspect demonstrates precisely those emotions that the liar usually shows. Different people experience the same things differently.
It largely depends on the relationship between the suspect and the verifier. The Boy Winslow father knew that Ronnie considers him fair. He never rightly accused him or punished him. And thanks to such a relationship, the father did not need to doubt the signs of fear. The boy had no reason to fear that they would not believe him; the only thing he could fear was revelations. People who are often unjustly accused, who are constantly not believed when they are telling the truth, have very ambiguous relationships with others, as a result of which signs of fear become ambiguous. A wife who is constantly accused of treason and is verbally or physically insulted for this will be afraid regardless of whether she speaks the truth or not. Her husband, among other things, had lost the ability to correctly use signs of fear. The verifier also should not consider emotion a sure sign of deception, if his relationship with the suspect can cause the latter to show it, even telling the truth.
At the first meeting, despite the absence of past experience, a person can also be suspected of lying. For example, one friend might think that the other is hiding the fact of his marriage, or the job seeker may find that the employer is deceiving him, arguing that in order to make a decision, he needs to talk with several more candidates; the offender may suspect the investigator that he intends to force him to confess to his accomplice and thereby turn the evidence against himself. The buyer may suspect the real estate agent that he is trying to inflate the price when he says that the owner will not even consider an offer with such a low price. Without prior communication with the suspect, the verifier will always be deprived of the basis and therefore full of doubts, because neither the information about the personality of the suspect, nor the information about his manner of behavior will help the verifier to accurately qualify the character of the emotions that are currently displayed. Only knowing what the suspect expects from the verifier can provide a reliable basis for assessing these emotions.
However, such expectations are not clearly articulated by every suspect; and not everyone who has them will manifest them. Suppose someone suspected of having access to secret information. Suspect, because he was seen with those who are considered Soviet agents. He never had any contact with the FBI agents - and therefore there is no expectation in their attitude. If he believes that the FBI never makes mistakes and always acts honestly, then there is no reason to doubt the signs of fear and can be safely interpreted as a fear of exposure. But if he believes that the FBI is a very idiotic institution, created only for the fabrication of vile evidence, then in the signs of fear is still very, very doubt. A person may simply be very afraid of what they will not believe. The verifier should not consider emotion to be a sure sign of deception, if expectations can force a suspect to demonstrate it, even speaking the truth.
Until now, I have only spoken about mistakes that arise because of the feelings of people who are undeservedly accused of lying. But it also happens that their emotional reactions, on the contrary, clarify the situation, helping to distinguish them from the liars. Confusion begins when both the one who speaks the truth and the deceiver can react equally equally to the suspicion; clarity - when their reactions must be different, and truthful, being under suspicion, will experience one feeling, a liar - completely different.
For example, "Winslow Boy". His father had extensive information (he knew the nature of his son and had a great experience in dealing with him), which gave him the opportunity to very accurately assess how exactly his son should feel, speaking the truth, and how - deceiving. He knew that Ronnie is not a psychopath and is not a born liar, does not suffer from feelings of inescapable guilt and shares fatherly values. So, in the case of a lie, he must suffer from strong remorse. Let me remind you, the lie would be to deny theft. The father also knew that, in the event of a crime, his son would have experienced a tremendous sense of guilt, regardless of whether he lied to this or not. So, if Ronnie actually committed the theft and concealed it, he could have been given two very strong feelings: guilt for his lies and guilt for a crime. And if Ronnie, in denying the theft, spoke the truth, he would not feel any guilt.
In addition, the father knew that the son trusted him completely; their past relationship did not give Ronnie a reason to doubt the sincerity of his father. Thus, Ronnie could not be afraid that he would not be believed. In order to increase the fear of exposure, the father, like a real lie detector operator, tried to convince his son of the power of his own abilities: “... if you lie to me, I still know it, because lying between me and you is impossible. I find out the truth, Ronnie. Think about it before you decide to answer. ” And Ronnie, based probably on his past experience, believed in what his father had said, and as a result he could be very afraid of being caught in a lie. And finally, his father offered forgiveness to him if he confessed:
"I will not be angry with you, Ronnie, if you tell me the truth." With this statement, the father raised the rate very high; if Ronnie had lied, he would have been the object of his father's anger, and he would also be very ashamed if he had really stolen and locked himself in it. My father could also say that he perfectly understands how easy it is to succumb to such a temptation, and explain that the main thing is not to hide what has been done, but to honestly confess everything.
Assuming what emotions Ronnie should have in the event of lies (fear and guilt) and having a great prior experience with the boy, allowing him to see any discrepancy to the son’s usual behavior, the father still had to take one more step in order to reduce the possibility of a mistake in interpreting his son . It was necessary to achieve complete confidence that, in truth, Ronnie would not experience any of those emotions that seem like fear or guilt. After all, the boy could get angry at the teacher for the false accusation of theft, and then he should have doubted the signs of fear arising at the mention of school; besides, the boy could feel real grief because he got into such a mess, and this bitterness could affect his whole behavior. And then the father could, taking these manifestations for feelings of fear or guilt, interpret these signs as evidence of lies, although anger and grief could be equally manifested if Ronnie were telling the truth.
But even when the circumstances are so clearly outlined (it is known what kind of emotions the suspect must show in the case of deception and in the case of truth), the interpretation of the behavioral signs of deception can be fraught with many dangers. As a rule, not one, but many emotions manifest themselves in behavior, and if one of them indicates that the suspect is lying, and the other - that he is telling the truth, one should doubt them. Tab. 1 “Compliance of types of silence to behavioral manifestations (classification by behavioral manifestations)” and Table 2 “Compliance of types of silence with behavioral manifestations (classification by type of information)” applications offer a key to determine exactly which emotions are behind various behavioral signs.
Suppose the father noticed that Ronnie was sweating and swallowing saliva convulsively. These signs would give him nothing, since they equally testify to both positive and negative emotions. In the case of lies, they would indicate feelings of guilt or fear, and in the case of truth, they would indicate anger or grief. If the boy showed a lot of manipulations, they also seemed to be of little use, since the number of manipulations increases with any emotion. But even signs of extremely negative emotions, such as a lowering of the voice, also had to be questioned. The tone could drop due to feelings of guilt, and this would be a sign of deception; but the same thing could happen because of sadness or suffering - and Ronnie could suffer a lot, regardless of whether he lied or told the truth. A sign of deception can be considered only the behavior that shows fear or guilt, and not anger, sadness or suffering. Behavior that gives out anger or suffering, and not fear or guilt, should be interpreted as a sign of honesty.Examination of table 1 “Conformity of types of silenced information to behavioral manifestations (classification by behavioral manifestations)” and table 2 “Compliance of types of suppressive information with behavioral manifestations (classification by types of information)” shows that, regardless of whether Ronnie lied or not, he could show The following signs of deception: speech and emblematic reservations, microexpressions and movements of faithful facial muscles. Only this provides information on the basis of which it is possible with sufficient accuracy to distinguish fear or guilt from anger or suffering. And if Ronnie were forced to undergo a detector test, it is unlikely that anything would come of it. The detector only notes the degree of arousal and does not reveal the nature of emotions. Ronnie, both guilty and innocent, would still be emotionally agitated. Having studied the work of the detector,I found that his accuracy hardly exceeded the result of random guessing, although errors of disbelief of truth were present in only a small amount of research. But we will discuss all this in the next chapter.
It is very difficult to assess what emotions the speaker will have and how they will differ from the emotions of the one who is lying, which I tried to show with the example of “Boy Winslow”. This requires good information about the suspect, which, as a rule, is not enough in practice. But even with comprehensive information, it is not always possible to catch a liar. It may be that deceiving and telling the truth, the suspect experiences the same emotion, as was the case with Desdemona. But even when different emotions are assumed, an ambiguity of behavioral signs can prevent evaluation. In addition, no one will ever express emotions so clearly that it will immediately be possible to distinguish a lying person from a true one. In all the examples I have cited, there was clearly not enough knowledge needed to evaluate the suspect's emotions;the same emotion was tested in the case of fraud, and in the absence thereof; or the emotions were different, but the behavioral signs were ambiguous, and the verifier could not use them^[114] .
And only a full understanding of all these difficulties can help the verifier avoid the errors of unbelief of truth and see his vulnerability to the errors of faith, lies. Of course, sometimes even a simple analysis of what kind of emotions a liar will experience and which person who speaks the truth can help figure out a liar. In the example of “Boy Winslow”, such an analysis highlighted the signs that are unambiguously signs of honesty (or deception), which simplified the task and helped to go in the right direction.
All these possible mistakes and precautions concerned so far only those situations where the charge has already been brought against the suspect. In life, it also happens that people who speak the truth are unaware of how carefully each word is studied, each gesture and each facial expression. And it happens the other way around: it seems to truthful people that they are suspected, whereas in reality there is nothing of the kind. Liars also do not always know whether the victim suspects fraud or not. Sometimes the most subtle apology, designed to prevent any possibility of suspicion, can cause quite the opposite effect. Victims who suspect deception may themselves begin to lie, hiding this suspicion and putting the interlocutor to sleep with false reactions. Or the deceiver's vigilance is put to sleep for other reasons. For example, in counterintelligence, when a spy is already revealed,the exposure is in every possible way hidden in order to be able to misinform the enemy. And someone hides the revelation only in order to enjoy the change of roles and see how the deceiver continues to weave his web and is unaware that he has already become a victim.
The situation when a person does not know that he is suspected has both advantageous and disadvantageous sides for the verifier. Not knowing about suspicion, a liar may not hide his tricks, do not apologize, do not rehearse the course of conduct, do not predict questions - in short, do not take any precautions. As time passes, when the victim is, in his opinion, completely entangled in a lie, he can even relax so much that arrogance alone will give it away. However, this is somewhat overshadowed by the fact that a liar, arrogant to carelessness, most likely will not be afraid of exposure, so the verifier buys carelessness at the price of mistakes made because of fear of exposure. But in this case, the verifier loses not only the behavioral signs of deception that occur because of fear,- the disorganizing effect of fear, which could confuse the original plans of the deceiver, disappears. And perhaps the hardest loss for the verifier is, in this case, that storm of emotions that sometimes arises from fear of getting caught, and without it it is hardly possible to provoke a liar into confession at all.
Ross Mallani, an investigator training specialist, defends the so-called Trojan horse strategy, which is that the policeman pretends to completely trust the suspect, thus giving him the opportunity to talk and get confused in his own intricacies. In this case, as Mullen argues, even while reducing the fear of exposure, the suspect is prone to make noticeable mistakes: “The policeman contributes to the development of deception, spinning up the details already received and pushing the suspect forward. Frankly speaking, he also deceives ... But such a lie cannot harm the cause. If a policeman made a mistake in his suspicions from the very beginning and the suspect does not lie at all, then such an investigation technique will not lead to any injustice. Only a lying one should be afraid of her ” ^[115].
This strategy is a direct reminiscence of the Council of Schopenhauer: “Suspecting that someone is lying, let us pretend that we believe him; then he becomes arrogant, lies even more, and the mask falls down ” ^[116] .
While the assertion that the faith of a cheater in the absence of suspicion reduces the fear of exposure, it is quite reasonable, it is difficult to say how much the same belief affects other feelings associated with a lie. Some liars may experience increased remorse for their deception, especially when dealing with a gullible victim, while others may not test them at all, explaining that while the victim is in ignorance, she does not suffer, and therefore she doesn’t cause no harm. Such deceivers can believe that their lies are motivated primarily by kindness, explaining it only with pity for the sensitivity of the victim. The enthusiasm of cheating can also increase and decrease. The shuffling of an unsuspecting victim may become especially sweet, accompanying a sense of contempt; and the trick of the victim, who suspected deception,much more acute due to the presence of a call in it.
Thus, it is impossible to predict when a liar will make more blunders: when his victim is calm or when she suspects something. Of course, there is always a chance that suspicions are groundless and the suspect is honest. But is it easier to determine whether the suspect is telling the truth or is lying if he does not know about the existence of a suspicion? If he does not know this, he is not afraid of not being believed; he does not have anger or suffering because he is suspected unfairly, and even for those who are consumed with guilt, it is not possible to act as if he had done something bad. But all this is good only to the extent that, for the signs of any of these emotions can be easily interpreted as signs of deception, while in fact they will only expose a completely honest person undeservedly suspected of lying. Alas,this acquisition is purchased at the cost of the already mentioned loss; After all, some feelings about lies, which create signs of deception (in particular, fear of exposure), will be clearly weaker if you are not aware of suspicion is really a liar. If a person does not know about the existence of a suspicion against him, the verifier usually makes fewer errors of disbelief of truth, since the signs of emotion in this case, most likely, are signs of deception; however, the possibility of errors of the faith of lies increases, because the feelings of the deceiver are usually not strong enough to betray the deceiver. When it is known about suspicion, everything happens the other way round: more errors of disbelief of truth and less - faith of lies.will be clearly weaker if not knowing about suspicion is really a liar. If a person does not know about the existence of a suspicion against him, the verifier usually makes fewer errors of disbelief of truth, since the signs of emotion in this case, most likely, are signs of deception; however, the possibility of errors of the faith of lies increases, because the feelings of the deceiver are usually not strong enough to betray the deceiver. When it is known about suspicion, everything happens the other way round: more errors of disbelief of truth and less - faith of lies.will be clearly weaker if not knowing about suspicion is really a liar. If a person does not know about the existence of a suspicion against him, the verifier usually makes fewer errors of disbelief of truth, since the signs of emotion in this case, most likely, are signs of deception; however, the possibility of errors of the faith of lies increases, because the feelings of the deceiver are usually not strong enough to betray the deceiver. When it is known about suspicion, everything happens the other way round: more errors of disbelief of truth and less - faith of lies.because the cheating feelings are usually not strong enough to betray the cheater. When it is known about suspicion, everything happens the other way round: more errors of disbelief of truth and less - faith of lies.because the cheating feelings are usually not strong enough to betray the cheater. When it is known about suspicion, everything happens the other way round: more errors of disbelief of truth and less - faith of lies.
The position of the verifier in a situation where the suspect does not know about the suspicion over him is complicated by two more problems. First: the verifier may not have a choice; not every situation allows the victim to hide his suspicions. But even when it is possible, not everyone will hide them and not everyone will deceive them in order to catch the deceiver. In addition, not every verifier has a talent of lies in such a way as to successfully support deception.
The second problem is much harder. Trying to hide their suspicions, the verifier risks not succeeding in this - so much so that he himself will not notice. To count on the veracity of your opponent in this case would be madness! Some liars may continue to coolly continue their work, having noticed that the victim suspected something, and having understood that the victim wants to hide his suspicions, he can even begin to lie more willingly. A liar may pretend to be offended by the righteous because the victim not only does not express his suspicions directly, but also in such an unworthy manner deprives him of the last opportunity to admit everything himself. True, such a game very rarely looks convincing, but for a while it may still scare the victim.
However, not all deceivers are so arrogant, some simply will not show the form that they have guessed something to gain time and cover their tracks or prepare a worthy retreat. Unfortunately, not only a liar can hide such a conjecture; truthful people can also hide the suspicion they have found in their address. And they do this for many different reasons. Some - in order to avoid scenes, others - to gain time and collect evidence in their own defense, others - to take some moves that will force suspects to decide the matter in their favor, etc.
One of the strongest benefits of knowing the suspicions you have is the ability to avoid the swamp of uncertainty. And even if the victim knows that she did not manage to hide her guess from the verifier, the person is still truthful, as well as the liar, can try to hide any of their feelings about this understanding.
Since the suspicion has become known, the liar may want to hide the fear of exposure, and telling the truth - the fear that he will not be believed, anger or suffering caused by this suspicion, without thinking that these feelings may be misinterpreted. Alas, if only the liars were trying to hide their feelings, how much easier it would be to detect deception! Although in this case there would be deceivers who, on the contrary, would learn to express the necessary feelings ...
Another advantage of the victim’s ignorance of suspicion is the possibility of applying in this case the so-called guilty test. David Likken, a psychologist-physiologist who criticizes the use of a lie detector, is convinced that this test can significantly improve the accuracy of results. The guilty knowledge test is performed as follows: the investigator asks the suspect not about whether he has committed any particular crime, but about what only the really guilty person can know. Suppose someone is suspected of murder (the suspect has a reason to commit a crime, he was seen near the crime scene, and so on). In this case, you can try to restore the picture, which in its original form is known only to the investigator and only really guilty. For example, a suspect may be asked:“In what position was the person killed — face down, face up or on the side?” After each part of the question, the suspect should say “no” or “I don't know.” The one who actually committed the murder knows that the dead person was lying, for example, face up. In his laboratory studies, Likken discovered that a person with a knowledge of the perpetrator, at the mention of the true state of affairs, immediately changes in the ANS, recorded by the detector; while an innocent person responds equally to all questions. And, in spite of any attempts by the culprit to hide the fact of his knowledge, in case of using this technique, the detector necessarily detects deceptionface up. In his laboratory studies, Likken discovered that a person with a knowledge of the perpetrator, at the mention of the true state of affairs, immediately changes in the ANS, recorded by the detector; while an innocent person responds equally to all questions. And, in spite of any attempts by the culprit to hide the fact of his knowledge, in case of using this technique, the detector necessarily detects deceptionface up. In his laboratory studies, Likken discovered that a person with a knowledge of the perpetrator, at the mention of the true state of affairs, immediately changes in the ANS, recorded by the detector; while an innocent person responds equally to all questions. And, in spite of any attempts by the culprit to hide the fact of his knowledge, in case of using this technique, the detector necessarily detects deception^[117] .
The advantage of this test is that when it is used, all the unusual reactions of an innocent person do not relate to what he was suspected of. Even if he fears that he will not be believed, or angry, or suffers from being in such a difficult situation, the possibility that an innocent person will most strongly react emotionally to face up is still equal to chance. But such questions are asked a lot. In short, the test of knowledge of the culprit eliminates the greatest danger that exists when trying to detect a lie - the mistake of disbelief of truth, which is caused by the fact that the feelings of a person suspected of lying but speaking the truth are confused with the feelings of a liar.
Unfortunately, this promising technology of detecting lies has not yet become the subject of extensive scientific research, and its accuracy is still questionable, because several studies on this topic have not confirmed the absolute accuracy that Likken suggested in his original work. The recent conclusion of the BTO ^[118] regarding the use of a lie detector, notes that "the test for the culprit shows a lower percentage of the number of perpetrators than other commonly used detector techniques." It was found that when it is used, the proportion of errors of the faith of lies is relatively high, but the error rate of unbelief of truth is low ^[119] .
In addition, the test for knowledge of the perpetrator has a very limited application anywhere other than criminal investigations. Too often, a person who assumes that he has become a victim of deceit does not have the information that a liar has, and without this the test is meaningless. In Updike's Let's Get Married, Ruth knows that she has an affair and knows with whom. Jerry, her husband, has only suspicions, and since he does not have information available only to the perpetrator, he cannot apply the perpetrator’s knowledge test. To apply it, the verifier needs to know exactly what happened and only doubt who did it.
Also, if the verifier only assumes how everything happened, this test cannot be used to find out the actual picture of the incident. It requires absolute confidence on the part of the verifier in all that relates to the incident, except the contractor. If it is not known what exactly the guilty person did, or what he felt at the same time, if the verifier does not know all the circumstances of the case, then the knowledge test of the guilty person cannot be used.