posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 04:35 AM
Body language is not an exact or even completely reliable science, true. Neither are polygraphs. Both work on similar principles.
The polygraph uses autonomic (aka, mostly involuntary) responses to determine truth or deception. There are scientific studies that verify that these
autonomic responses are, in most people, an effective way to determine truth. The issue comes in that phrase "in most people." It is entirely possible
to 'trick' a polygraph into showing truth or lie when the opposite should register. The most effective technique I have found for this is to literally
convince oneself that a lie is the truth, or vice versa. The autonomic responses react to the belief that one is lying or being honest, not to
some absolute truth/lie metric. In addition, polygraphs are designed to be used by professionals who can accurately interpret data, and even then
things such as high stress from other sources or or details in the questions or even the way they are asked can skew the results. Finally, the
difference shown between truth and lie varies widely from individual to individual... there is no absolute metric that can be used to determine truth,
but rather it is the change from truth to lie and back that does the indicating. These reasons are why a polygraph is inadmissible in court.
Body language works the same way. There are certain actions and expressions that are, in most people, indicative of the mental condition of that
person. 90% of language is non-verbal, and 90% of verbal communication is non-lingual. That's why texts and emails are so impersonal; they lose the
vast majority of the communication cues that are employed in face-to-face communication. The way someone holds their hands, the expression on their
face, the position of the head... these are all indicators of mental disposition. But there is a problem: that same phrase, "in most people." That's
how actors convince us to suspend reality and believe in their character; actors are capable of manipulating these communication cues to present a
more believable character.
But people other than actors can, and do, manipulate their body language as well. Some do it subconsciously, like Trump. He presents an aura, composed
of body language cues, of power. In that case, he is also able to temper that projection of power with a projection of amiability as well, which is
something we typically call "charisma."
All that said, Ford showed several slip-ups in her testimony that were picked up almost immediately by multiple people in the real-time thread on the
hearing. The first was the voice; it changed form the "little girl" voice to a more normal one at several times. The one I picked up on was that her
demeanor would go form terrified whenever Grassley was speaking to one of relaxation whenever a Democrat was speaking. She was initially using the
terrified look when confronted with the prosecutor, but the prosecutor was able to get her to relax and give her a demeanor very similar to that she
gave the Democrats.
I started watching the video, and it is quite interesting. The author is picking up on many cues that were much more subtle than I would be able to
express. I strongly suggest everyone watch it and listen carefully.
As an aside, I also picked up on the discoloration in Kavanaugh's face during his opening statement. That cannot be controlled by any means I am
familiar with. The blood flow in the facial area is completely subconscious. It was not makeup (as is typically used by actors, as they are not even
able to control that) because the discoloration changed throughout his testimony, seemingly coinciding with his emotional state. I would love to see a
similar video on his body language, however, to compare the two.