Lies, damn lies, and science
by Patrick | Published in Featured, How To | 8 Comments

The human brain is perhaps the most complicated piece of biology to ever come into existence. It gives us the ability to imagine the future and create great works of art. And both of these things go hand in hand with our amazing ability to lie our asses off.
Lies? Nope. Just misconceptions
If you live in the U.S. you may have seen a fairly new show on FOX called “Lie to me” (and if you haven’t – don’t worry, you’re not missing anything). Anyway it’s about a detective who can tell if you’re lying just by the way your “body gives you away”. Of course if you’ve seen any cop show then you’ve seen this sort of thing before, the only problem is that it’s complete garbage.
If we step into the real world, away from the stereotypical way that scriptwriters think shifty liars behave, then we’d better start our review of how to lie by dismissing some common misconceptions.
(1) Liars talk faster and talk longer in addition to showing signs of nervousness. This accurately describes just about every one in my lab with a deadline and a cup of coffee. What it doesn’t show is the mark of someone lying. These behavioral cues are so generic as to be next to useless in determining whether someone is holding back the truth.
(2) Liars fidget and either don’t make eye contact or stare at you too much. It’s a good description of many scientists, mathematicians and introverts in general. Again behavior so generic and free of context that it’s as easy to believe as it is wrong. If this one was really true then every computer geek I’ve met was lying like their life depended on it. The poor things are shy little flowers in reality.
So is that’s the end of this analysis? Are you home free to lie like a electrified lying machine on St. Fibber’s Day? If the “How to spot a liar” tips that are all over the web are actually rubbish, are there no behaviors that give you away?
Not so fast. From a neuroscience perspective lying is hard work. How much “work” it is in cognitive processing power is hard to pin down, but the catch is it’s always more work than sticking to reality.
And the hard working brain makes mistakes.
Thinking about lying
The ability to create artificial realities in our mind is pretty much what makes us humans and not goldfish. It’s our extra cognitive abilities that allow us to imagine all sorts of fictional possibilities and plan for the future. But we don’t actually use all our extra cognitive power continuously, because it’s just much easier to process reality without alteration.
It’s speculation, but passively taking it all in is cognitively simpler than creating a false reality because of evolutionary pressure to ensure that first and foremost the brain operates quickly. Think of it as a survival tactic that makes it difficult for us to confuse reality with what you’ve made up. Back in the Stone Age you don’t want to spend a long time pondering “should I run away from saber toothed tigers or are they cuddly little cereal box mascots?”
Let’s take a more modern example: You arrive at work late because of an accident on the highway. It’s not hard to explain. In fact you can just launch into casual conservation about it over lunch without even thinking about the details. Memory recall and conversation are almost so effortless they are as unnoticeable as thinking about moving your arm to scratch your behind.
But what if you are late to work because you overslept and you create a lie that you are late because of an imaginary car accident? First you have to synthesize the details of the lie, while simultaneously examining that what you’ve said is believable. Next up you have to talk and think about what you’re going to say next instead of it just flowing. Memory is now working double time – what actually happened and what you said happened and who you said it to.
This is where the cognitive load comes into play and “mistakes” appear. Since humans are self-aware and we know when we’re lying we simultaneously try to screen our facial and other physiological reactions to try and appear what we think is natural.
“What we think is natural” is key here, because it’s unlikely that you have an accurate picture of how your body behaves from someone else’s point of view. When you’re self conscious about lying you’re also thinking “Should I make eye contact? Ok a little? Whoops! That might be too much! Do I normally do stuff with my hands when I talk? Wait a second – are they on to me?”
And it’s this last thought that adds another cognitive dimension: you are trying to monitor what your audience’s reaction is “Do they normally look at me like that? Is that the same expression they normally have?”
And that’s where lies fall apart and you get busted. Not because of the behavioral myths I mentioned, but because your behavior changes from normal.
How to lie convincingly
When dealing with people who are unfamiliar with you it’s hard to tell when you’re being untruthful because they are looking for change from normal behavior. Since strangers don’t know what’s normal, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. What is actually useful is learning how to fib to people you’ve met before.
1) Monitor behavior. It’s all about planning ahead. Begin by deliberately observing what you do during a normal conversation. Do you make eye contact? What does your voice sound like? The key though is facial expressions. It’s a tough one to monitor, since you can’t see your face when you talk. Talking to a mirror isn’t natural either, so the least intrusive method for practicing is with a real web cam conversation where you can see your own feed.
2) Avoid contact. As I mentioned the longer people know you, the better they can spot deviations from normal. Often this is quite subtle: your target processes what you’ve just said and if your behavior isn’t conforming to what they’ve seen before, even if they can’t put their finger on it, they’ll know something’s up. Again it’s all about planning ahead – keep your distance and contact to a minimum before going in for the big fib.
3) Practice. It’s not always possible to avoid having contact with people you’re trying to deceive, and the only answer is practice. Actors are liars and great actors rehearse. Unless the actor is Keanu Reeves, actors have to make behaving differently to how they normally act, believable. Since lying is differently from normal behavior so you’ll need to be acting. And good acting takes practice.
As you can see the best way to effectively lie is to prepare in advance. This takes a lot of time, and in the end, it’s often simpler just to be truthful. Of course there are many good reasons to invest in the great art of deception, and the most practical application that comes to mind? Poker.
By the way, you’re all welcome to come and play at my next game. I’m not very good, honestly.
This is no lie though, clicking on the Email or RSS updates will get you instant updates to all the articles here at Very Evolved.
original image alexindigo remixed by Patrick
April 2nd, 2009

April 2nd, 2009at 8:47 pm(#)
The worst is when you have to tell someone something that’s true but doesn’t seem believable. Okay, okay, Michael Jackson didn’t come over to my house to use the bathroom…but his sister did!
April 2nd, 2009at 9:14 pm(#)
@PFP – Really? Nawww that’s an April fools day +1 joke for sure
Nevertheless that gives me a great idea for an article: The neuroscience of body image: MJ case study.
Patrick
April 4th, 2009at 7:42 am(#)
The lack of someone re-reading your article makes me write the following comments:
“…tips that are all over the web are actually rubbish then are there are no behaviors that give you away?”
then are there are no?
“But what if you are late…” should end in a ? not a period.
“…what you said happened and who you said it too.”
Who you said it TO, not TOO.
With the onset of blogging and internet “reporting”, the lack of qualified editors is giving me a serious headache. By the way, I do not use spell-check. And yes, I DO read the whole article.
April 4th, 2009at 8:01 am(#)
@Greg – Alas I am but a lone research scientist, who has had his command of the English language degraded by decades of stuffy scientific writing. As I say in my about page, this site is my attempt to become a better communicator. Whether you wrote your comment with a genuine intent to be helpful or are just trolling, I have learnt from it.
And the essence of good science is that you should always be learning new things.
So Greg, did you gain anything of interest from my article, putting my grammar to one side?
Patrick
April 4th, 2009at 8:25 am(#)
@ The Personal Finance Playbook
nice goonies reference.
April 4th, 2009at 8:50 am(#)
@Kellie & @PFP: !!!!!!Damn! I can’t believe I missed that reference – let this be a lesson to you: A PhD in neuroscience does nothing to help recall movie trivia.
April 7th, 2009at 7:40 pm(#)
great post! Anyone that knows me can attest that I talk fast and long, too much RedBull and Coffee (sometimes at the same time) can make other feel that I’m lying…but the ones that truly know me, will attest that when I lie, there are other cues (which I wont give away lol).
I guess practicing is the best way to get away with a lie, I mean, sale people always look into mirrors to practice their scripts in order to look and sound convincing.
January 2nd, 2010at 2:28 pm(#)
I seriously can’t believe that I am coming to the defense of a television show and its writers, let alone one on Fox, but this one actually warrants it.
I can perfectly visualize the type of boilerplate cop drama that reuses the trite “cop hunch” to identify liars. I too think its garbage.
Where I disagree is including “Lie to Me” in this bunch.
Let’s be clear, I’m not a scientist or an expert in this field, I’m just a guy who likes to read about this kind of stuff (which is why I love this website!). So really can’t vouch for the accuracy all of the stuff on “Lie to Me”.. but before even watching the show I’d come across enough stuff to know they’re trying very hard to base it on facts.
Radiolab had an episode about liars, and featured Paul Ekman, a psychologist who has done a lot of work with microexpressions. Microexpressions are a major focal point of the “lie-detection” being employed on the show, and the main character of the show is actually written to loosely resemble Paul Ekman and his work.
I only happened to discover microexpressions via that Radiolab podcast days before I just happened to see the pilot of “Lie to Me” on TV, so I was really blown away when they focused on microexpressions too.
What i think is really amusing with respect to this article is that the show’s writers seem to have the same sort of feelings toward those trite cop dramas and their own lie detection methods, because just about every episode I’ve seen has some character who was “working the case” before the main character, Dr. Lightman, got called in, and thinks Lightman’s methods are garbage and their own hunches are finely sharpened. And yet it’s Lightman who ends up debunking the trite hunches and fallacious beliefs about lies.
One particular example that I enjoyed was a company that was demonstrating a new type of polygraph that was ultra portable, and the assumption was that it was supposed to revolutionize interrogation by being able to detect lies while out in the field. In a matter of minutes, Lightman hilariously demonstrates the fallacies of polygraphs in two ways. He starts by walking in with this ostrich egg and hands it to the guy who I guess owns the technology, and describes some culture that uses these eggs as a polygraph.. the suspect holds one during questioning, and if he breaks it he is guilty. He then mentions how the problem with polygraphs, whether it be ostrich eggs or high tech ones, is that they don’t measure lies, only emotions. Meanwhile, a man on the other side of a 2 way mirror is demonstrating the new polygraph by being asked questions, but at this point Lightman has just sent in a stunningly beautiful woman in a low cut blouse (or something like that) to replace the person asking questions. She begins asking questions, and the guy being polygraphed starts failing miserably because he’s nervous about the beautiful woman. Lightman turns back to the guy who just funded this new polygraph and asks how much he invested in this new device that is fundamentally flawed, and at that point the guy breaks the egg
My point is that I think the show you mentioned, “Lie to Me”, is actually a refreshing alternative to all the shows out there that you had in mind when writing this article.
(Here are some links to reference a few of things i mentioned above:
Radiolab podcast on deception: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/02/29
Wikipedia article on Paul Ekman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman
Wikipedia article on Microexpressions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression )