I Can NO Longer Lie To You. Now You Can Learn To See Truth!

NoRegretsEver
Then we have the awesomeness of double speak.

Here is a wonderful and short article on Double Speak and how it works.

There is even a yearly award given to the person that had perpetrated double speak (which is NOT a good thing by the way) since 1974.
Past Recipients of the NCTE Doublespeak Award

Here are a few examples of double speak.

Here are some examples of commonly used phrases that are regarded as doublespeak, and the phrase that people actually mean.

"Using the facilities" instead of going to the bathroom
"Downsizing" instead of firing people
"Reducing costs" as opposed to cutting peoples' salaries or the amount of supplies going into work
"Preowned" as opposed to used and possibly beaten up
"Well loved" as opposed to old and raggedy
"Senior citizen" in place of an old person
"Experienced" or "well experienced" in place of old
"Not doing so well" instead of very sick or injured
"Detainee" for a prisoner of war
"Pre-emptive strike" instead of unprovoked attack
"Enhanced interrogation" in place of torture
"Person of interest" instead of a suspect in a crime
"Capital punishment" instead of the death penalty
"Quaint" as opposed to not terribly amusing or beautiful
"Unique" instead of weird
"Take down" in military language instead of saying killing someone
"Restructuring" instead of a reorganization
"Not quite clean" instead of really dirty
"A bit shaky" as opposed to of really poor quality
"Gone to the Lord" instead of died
"Crossed over to the other side" instead of dying or turning to evil
"Gone to greener pastures" instead of leaving
"Doing business" instead of going to the bathroom
"Put to sleep" instead of euthanize
"Ethnic cleansing" instead of genocide
"The underworld" instead of hell
"Lose your breakfast/lunch/dinner" instead of throwing up
"Going a little over the top" as opposed to drinking way too much
"Substance abuse problem" as opposed to drug addiction
"Curvy" in place of fat
"Ill advised" in place of highly thought against or a very bad idea

"Being held back" instead of failing or not performing well

From reading this last, you may notice that doublespeak can also be seen as a euphemism or as being "politically correct."

examples.yourdictionary.com...

I would LOVE to add more detail about double speak but seriously all of the links share the same info as the article and author that I have shared above.

"Quantitative Easing" - Should be an epic award for greatest amount of bull$hit in one double-speak statement

"You score is 13 out of 18.

Your performance have been rated as 'Good' and your percentage of correct answers is 72.22"

I would have scored higher if I had not rushed through, and one question was a comprehension issue. Overall with my mind somewhat focused on the task at hand, sure I did ok.

The thing is, while this test is helpful and points out what you should be looking for, it isn't the same as doing it every day. If you don't practice you will certainly not be very good at it in a real life scenario. Book knowledge then put it into practice. I would hazard a guess that if we all started practicing this everyday, we could all read people in a much improved manner.

Obama watched himself in the mirror after seeing this thread.

And now believes his own BS.

Congratulations - you have completed Test Your Lie-Q.

You score is 15 out of 18.

Your performance have been rated as 'Very Good' and your percentage of correct answers is 83.33

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Lie To Me is a show on Netflix. The main character can detect lies through facial expressions. It is very interesting. He says facial expressions are universal.

I have found that the people who use these techniques to ascertain a liar will begin to see lies even when a person has told nothing but the truth.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver

I meant to address this earlier, but after looking for an article I read on this topic, and failing to find it, I never made it back. So I'll just have to address it off the top of my head, so to speak. In regards to methods of detecting lies. It seems to me there are no definitive indicators. Intuition is probably one of our best tools in deciding whether or not someone is yanking our chain, and we need to ask more questions.

Many of the indicators cops and alphabet agencies may say they use, can be ambiguous at best. The reason I say this is, because when someone feels uncomfortable, fearful, or intimidated, they may be "guilty" of any or all of these "indicators". By using a set of protocols to try and detect lies. You inevitably criminalize the individual you are questioning, when in reality, their actions may be a normal response to the stimuli they are receiving.

Bottom line. I don't think there's anything wrong with being aware of certain indicators, and looking for them, as long we don't treat them as an indictment of the person in question.

Just my take on it.

reply to post by corvuscorrax

I have found that the people who use these techniques to ascertain a liar will begin to see lies even when a person has told nothing but the truth.

I didn't see your post until I hit the button. Well said. This is certainly true in many cases. For more reasons than I laid out in my post above.

From my own studies, the kinds of behaviors listed in the OP from the two books are actually fairly general and considered normal. A person may feel various emotions that may elicit the behaviors listed here, but it is not a reliable indicator of lying. Even a person’s health conditions can affect the behaviors listed here, but they do not reliably indicate lying. Neither is there any context provided, among other variables. One must also consider any impressions given or manipulation on the part of the questioner, as this is a factor that plays into the responses of the one being questioned.

Also, I found the disclaimer from the CIA (in the link there) about the book written by the former agents to be somehow disconcerting.

reply to post by Bassago


Multiple choice tests are the often the worst, and can be manipulative. Because in a multiple choice test, it may be that some or none of the choices for the answers are ‘right’. So you are ‘supposed’ to pick the ‘best’ answer, not the ‘right' one. And the ‘best’ answer is the answer that the person(s) giving the test ‘says’ it is. This can produce cognitive dissonance.

The test is not reliable.

reply to post by QuietSpeech

The thing is, while this test is helpful and points out what you should be looking for, it isn't the same as doing it every day. If you don't practice you will certainly not be very good at it in a real life scenario. Book knowledge then put it into practice. I would hazard a guess that if we all started practicing this everyday, we could all read people in a much improved manner.

This is true, but I don't advise it. Putting this type of study to use on a daily basis can (will IMO) allow your brain to go into the fight or flight syndrome, and can cause many kinds of issues, both mentally & physically.

Some people study this for purely entertainment purposes, while others haven't that luxury and it becomes almost a lifestyle. If not well disciplined it can be as hard on those people as alcoholism (analogy, but true as well).

hellnotes

From my own studies, the kinds of behaviors listed in the OP from the two books are actually fairly general and considered normal. A person may feel various emotions that may elicit the behaviors listed here, but it is not a reliable indicator of lying. Even a person’s health conditions can affect the behaviors listed here, but they do not reliably indicate lying. Neither is there any context provided, among other variables. One must also consider any impressions given or manipulation on the part of the questioner, as this is a factor that plays into the responses of the one being questioned.

Also, I found the disclaimer from the CIA (in the link there) about the book written by the former agents to be somehow disconcerting.

It could be said to be more reliable, if one had a 'baseline' knowledge of the person you are studying.

reply to post by RobinB022

It could be said to be more reliable, if one had a 'baseline' knowledge of the person you are studying.

What would you consider to be an adequate ‘baseline’? Is ‘more reliable’ reliable? In the end, you would still have to make a personal judgment, and decide for yourself if someone is lying to you or not.