You're watching...
Alan asks former CIA officer Michael Floyd to share his techniques for detecting deception.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Welcome Michael Floyd is -- -- three -- -- -- we'll fly.
Along with a Philip you and Susan.
-- -- -- -- -- -- Until I haven't -- yet now you -- what former CIA people.
Yeah and based on your experience.
Having done interrogations.
And -- to discern when someone -- you the truth.
You felt that this could be applied to our daily lives.
What what was the nature of interrogation -- -- we operated.
Overseas and this is that the primary reason we've -- develop this methodology was to be able to use it.
You 24 all cultures and and both genders something that we we we could use anywhere any time.
And how does this apply to.
-- -- -- -- What was done is we've adapted dead these methodologies that we develop in the intelligence community.
Four commercial applications.
That the the reason for the book was simply that we were training people.
And we can only -- so many people and we wanted to reach a much.
Broader audience.
Certain certainly.
And so what what we recognize was a lot of the methodology inspect all the other methodologies that are being taught.
What we're deficient and in several areas.
Now you say the average person lies about ten times today.
That's what research shows really a bunch of -- Well you know aid in -- and a 24 hour period folks typically.
According to the behavior -- Tell approximately ten semis and average and include this socialized most of us tell.
-- to their way through the day.
I think is as -- industry saying hey you look great.
The other than you know I'm really not sleeping with your wife I mean -- there's a different every penalized right.
And absolutely what one has significant consequence and that's really where.
Our model comes in we were talking to somebody who has something to lose.
Where there's a consequence.
That that's what we are the most effective.
So when you look at the politician be it Barack Obama or Mitt Romney for example and -- ask you take political sides here but can you tell and one of them flying and then you.
Noticed any of our top.
Politicos line.
-- -- you know it depends that the methodology is what we call a cause and effect relationship between the stimulus we present.
And the response the person gives many of the things that you see on on television.
There's no clear cut stimulus.
For -- to detect.
Truth or deception.
But every now and then when.
Commentators as usual -- is able to escape pinpoint.
Concise.
Question and that that's for the model works that.
W written about what Anthony Weiner.
-- textbook case of deception when he was being questioned specifically about whether or not.
He acted a certain way -- -- Twitter followers.
One or two in particular and he clearly was -- is pulling out of the question right.
That's absolutely.
What what we've -- in that.
Interview that was interesting is.
The its significance.
The behaviors that were exhibited.
Not all deceptive indicators are created equally.
So consequently.
This significant.
-- indicators he was exhibiting.
Allowed us to draw some meaningful insights regarding that.
Like that they like for example attacking the interview were answering a different question -- the one that was asked -- some of these reported out.
That are techniques when would use to in effect tell -- -- Yeah I think it's it's this aggressive.
Or at tech behavior that is is one of the -- key indicators we look for.
Typically aggression is the last weapon of Detroit's -- deceptive person.
-- defects -- the allies the truthful person.
So.
-- when we're interviewing or talking to somebody and effects are not their ally in this field backed into a corner.
Oftentimes.
They will do go into attack mode in order to get the interview were.
To go away -- stop asking those.
But and is having a lot during the Republican debates and -- and I think -- move partisan standpoint can but but in this particular case I noticed that they would attack you whoever the moderator was.
In certain cases to rather than name rather than that -- they have been more of a avoidance rather than aligned itself not into an answer question.
Yeah it's it's it's a deceptive strategy certainly that.
-- many receivers won't use.
In an effort to try to control the agenda.
And the answer only questions that they choose to answer.
And you mention Herman Cain as well I think canopy if you you did talking about when he was asked about whether or not he -- This affair that he was alleged to have had he clearly -- some of these avoidance techniques in lying about it.
The -- you believe in indeed he was guilty of the affair which he was -- -- Do we -- that that's that's one that is never fully been disclosed but there's certainly based on the behaviors that we observed them.
Heard.
Certainly our conclusion would be.
That he has been less than candid -- regarding.
-- allegations.
Now what do we look forward to some of these we look for in our daily lives in of the people with -- we're interacting.
Are not telling us the -- That was one thing that -- or methodology apart is we we use a codified approach.
Should we we have -- rule of political clusters were not human lie detectors so.
We we need to see at least two deceptive indicators of a combination of verbal and or non verbal indicators.
-- have to be.
They have to present in a timely manner.
And and most interest staying about our model as we actually ignore truthful behavior.
We we disregard the truthful behavior which allows us only to focus on the deceptive indicators that.
-- -- -- -- What it's it's sounds counter intuitive but the the other methodologies it it's more of a comparison that they do able -- able.
Conduct the interview and and the -- the truthful what they perceive to be truthful behaviors.
-- against the number deceptive indicators that the fallacy of that approach is -- you know or can imagine.
-- behavior is easily imitated or replicated it did doesn't take a rocket scientist to present.
-- with indicators they think will be perceived as truthful for example good eye contact.
Open posh here.
That that type itself.
They be doing that as part of their effort to cover up.
And you'd perceive it as being truthful but they're actually purposely doing things that are perceived as truthful tutorial after -- It exactly -- what we're we're not impressed by that we do not we do not.
Evaluate -- So what -- the things -- value.
What we look really at it 22 general Myers we look at the deceptive verbal indicators in the deceptive.
Non verbal indicators.
-- may be one thing your listeners.
What would not be so inclined to look for would be what we called the unintended.
Message.
What we look at the literal most of the response and that allows us to draw.
Insights from from the actual words.
Can give me an example of them.
Well let's go back to Sanjay Kumar the former CEO.
Computer associates.
He.
Went on CNBC -- day after.
The New York Times reported.
I think accounting irregularities.
And in that interview on CNBC.
He characterized the allegations is misleading for example not if if they were not involved in.
Fraud or accounting irregularities.
That we we would suggest that that would not be our word of choice.
As misleading we would probably allegations.
Wrong.
He said we have a new way of selling them in new way of counting revenue.
When he connected dots connect case the new -- of selling in the new way of counting revenue.
-- fraud.
-- Right now the average person might not pick up on that right.
That that's exactly right.
So what do you look for.
Data day.
With your partner your spouse.
Your work.
Environment your flaws your friends or this certain things we should -- on the alert about.
Because we we like as you point -- we like to think people are telling us the truth we don't want to believe we're being liked it.
Yet that that that's we -- we -- spinal -- we talk about the five obstacles to detecting deception.
And for my money the biggest obstacle the thing that gets in the way.
It is our tendency to believe.
As a society we've been raised to see the best in people.
You're innocent until proven guilty yeah.
And and people just accepting at face value when and became a reality that should be more what -- -- professionally skeptical.
The information they receive.
So what do we look for someone has a look -- -- -- you look for people who are.
Maybe.
Hemming and -- a little bit what what specific things we look for.
Among those with whom we're communicating.
What made maybe it would be -- to first of all talk about what we shouldn't look for and there are.
Many many.
Behavioral myths misconceptions.
Probably the most surprising is that I contact I think most of had been led to believe that that system best indicator of deception and and we would actually found in -- research this is ports there's.
That untruthful people actually had the better I can -- Then triple it is it's renteria off the -- right off the track.
-- Another quick example of a -- would be what's called close posture.
We we've we've been taught that.
Somebody sitting with close -- here's an indicator.
Deception.
Our our model is based on the behaviors that we know because so we we don't know why somebody's sitting with a -- -- -- they simply may be comfortable.
They may be cold so we we we do not evaluate -- the same thing with.
Something that would be called general nervous tension just because somebody is nervous.
We we we are simply guessing.
Why why they're nervous if it may be there there and comfortable.
-- with the interview process.
As opposed to being deliberately deceptive.
You.
Well -- there's there's there's a finite list of deceptive verbal and deceptive non verbal indicators.
Is that they have been proven over the years at least by it's to be the most valid and reliable indicators.
Things like failure to -- -- failure to answer repeating the question.
Not just because someone exhibits one of these deceptive indicators to equal.
Deception.
What we do -- we look for areas of concern in other words if somebody does exhibit what we call a cluster of deceptive indicators.
It can mean a variety of things it could be a flat out lie it could be.
Simply they lack confidence in the response.
In certain generous.
A little more than when indicate it's all in the book just buy the lie.
Michael -- I thank you very much in your with a Philip Houston Susan corn -- thank you so much for -- about it.
