WEBVTT - An Ex-CIA Officer Explains How to Spot a Lie in Business 0:00:10.720 --> 0:00:14.080 Hello, and welcome to another episode of the All Lots Podcast. 0:00:14.200 --> 0:00:15.560 I'm Tracy Alloway. 0:00:15.240 --> 0:00:16.400 And I'm Joe Whysenthal. 0:00:16.680 --> 0:00:18.960 Joe, I'm kind of nervous about this episode. 0:00:19.600 --> 0:00:20.880 I am too. 0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:25.320 About fifteen minutes ago, the same thought flashed through my mind, 0:00:25.600 --> 0:00:27.760 I too, am a little nervous about this episode. 0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:31.480 Believe it or not, we do some preparation for our episodes, 0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:34.519 although maybe it doesn't always show this particular episode, I 0:00:34.560 --> 0:00:38.760 haven't done a lot of reading into this topic, and 0:00:39.080 --> 0:00:43.720 I'm really hoping the guest doesn't notice. But I think 0:00:43.760 --> 0:00:46.440 my chances are very low because we are literally going 0:00:46.479 --> 0:00:50.360 to be speaking to someone whose whole career is about 0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:51.960 basically spotting lies. 0:00:52.200 --> 0:00:54.279 I mean that's essential. Like in the business world, if 0:00:54.280 --> 0:00:56.960 you really think about it, you know, companies come on 0:00:57.000 --> 0:01:00.960 their calls. I think they don't typically lie per se. 0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:03.280 I don't think executives lie that much, but you know, 0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:05.520 they shade the truth. They highlight some things, they don't 0:01:05.560 --> 0:01:07.480 highlight the other things. I feel like it would be 0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:11.120 a pretty good skill to have in life to just 0:01:11.240 --> 0:01:14.480 generally and especially in business, to just generally know whether 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:15.920 someone is being honest with you or not. 0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:18.680 Absolutely, it feels like a sort of module they should 0:01:18.680 --> 0:01:20.720 have at Wharton if you're doing a business degree in 0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:21.360 an MBA. 0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:24.360 That I've never seen in an MBA program. 0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:26.679 Well, the person we're going to be speaking to actually 0:01:26.720 --> 0:01:30.840 came to us via Brad Jacobs. You might remember him 0:01:30.959 --> 0:01:33.400 from the episode in which he was talking about his 0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:39.120 latest acquisition and the new part of his logistics empire. 0:01:39.280 --> 0:01:42.000 And he's written a new book and we were reading 0:01:42.040 --> 0:01:44.000 it and one of the things that we thought was 0:01:44.040 --> 0:01:46.880 really interesting was there was a mention that he was 0:01:47.000 --> 0:01:51.640 working with a man called Dick or Phil Houston, an 0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:55.880 ex CIA person who was basically a polygraph examiner for 0:01:55.920 --> 0:02:00.320 a long time, and Brad and Phil were working together 0:02:00.760 --> 0:02:04.680 as part of the due diligence process for Brad's many, many, 0:02:04.720 --> 0:02:08.960 many serial acquisitions. So the idea was he might go 0:02:09.080 --> 0:02:12.320 in and buy a company and then Phil would interview 0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:15.160 some of the senior execs and basically try to see 0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:17.480 whether or not what they were saying about the company 0:02:17.639 --> 0:02:18.160 was true. 0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:20.959 Right, you know, speak of nice skills to have. There's 0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:24.560 always that information asymmetry, whether you're just an investor or 0:02:24.600 --> 0:02:27.200 whether you're buying out a whole company, and you know, 0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:29.120 the seller is always going to know more. Sort of 0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:32.520 classic problem in economics. But if you knew the result 0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:34.400 of an answer is going to be one hundred percent true, 0:02:34.720 --> 0:02:35.800 then that would be pretty great. 0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:37.080 So that would be nice. 0:02:37.400 --> 0:02:40.160 What's that TV show with the Girl who Can Spot 0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:40.520 a Love? 0:02:40.639 --> 0:02:43.720 Oh? Oh, poker face? Poker face pretty? 0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:45.920 Yes, it's pretty. It's kind of entertaining. It's kind of 0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:47.040 like it's it's fun. 0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:49.560 It's a fun It does seem like a useful scar too. 0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:50.120 Yeah. 0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:52.920 By the way, another reason I'm slightly terrified of this 0:02:53.040 --> 0:02:57.440 episode is I used to know an XCIA person who 0:02:57.520 --> 0:03:00.360 then went into another profession. I don't want to give 0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:02.519 too much way, but it was finance related, so I 0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:05.320 used to speak to him about financial things. And I 0:03:05.360 --> 0:03:10.120 remember I met him once for lunch after a particularly 0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:13.960 terrible mourning where something really really bad had happened in 0:03:14.000 --> 0:03:16.760 my professional life. And I sat down and I was like, Hi, 0:03:16.880 --> 0:03:18.840 how are you. How's it going? I can't wait to 0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:21.400 have lunch. We're going to talk about capital markets or whatever. 0:03:21.800 --> 0:03:24.959 And he immediately leaned forward and was like, Tracy, tell 0:03:25.000 --> 0:03:28.600 me what's wrong. Something bad happened. And I asked him 0:03:28.600 --> 0:03:30.280 how he knew, and he was like, oh, you got 0:03:30.280 --> 0:03:32.600 this like little crease in the middle of your forehead. 0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:34.720 And this wasn't you know, this was like a casual 0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:37.720 source meeting. This wasn't someone I knew really really well, 0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:41.800 but he knew he knew that I was upset. Anyway, 0:03:41.920 --> 0:03:44.320 So on that note, very very pleased to say that 0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:47.480 we are going to be speaking to Phil Houston. He 0:03:47.800 --> 0:03:51.320 is a career CIA officer and also the author of 0:03:51.400 --> 0:03:55.760 the book Spy the Lie. Former CIA officers teach you 0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:59.160 how to detect deception, so we're going to learn how 0:03:59.160 --> 0:04:01.720 to spot the bi Phil, thank you so much for 0:04:01.840 --> 0:04:02.760 joining all thoughts. 0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:04.800 Tracy, thanks a ton for having me. 0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:08.000 So just to begin with, how do you become a 0:04:08.080 --> 0:04:11.040 lie detection expert? What is this career path? 0:04:11.680 --> 0:04:16.960 When I joined the agency fairly early on, I was 0:04:18.000 --> 0:04:22.200 called over to the head of polygraph in the agency 0:04:22.320 --> 0:04:25.359 and they had spotted the fact that I had developed 0:04:25.360 --> 0:04:30.119 a lot of information doing background investigations and they thought 0:04:30.160 --> 0:04:34.040 that I would be a very good candidate for such 0:04:34.040 --> 0:04:34.640 a position. 0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:38.080 There's so much to get into. Tracy mentioned that we 0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:41.200 came across you talking to former guest Brad Jacobs, who 0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:43.560 you apparently have worked with a lot. How do you 0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:47.839 deploy LIE detection skills in the corporate context. 0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:51.200 Well, we use them in every single day. It's not 0:04:51.560 --> 0:04:56.880 just in a regimen of due diligence protocol. We're looking 0:04:57.120 --> 0:05:02.120 day in and day out. It's continuous of value, especially 0:05:02.160 --> 0:05:07.320 with new companies that Brad acquires, because we never know 0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:11.640 if we've missed something in the due diligence process, so 0:05:11.880 --> 0:05:16.360 we're always paying attention. And Brad has been highly trained 0:05:16.400 --> 0:05:20.640 now by us and my team in the lie detection 0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:23.839 model that I developed when I was at the agency. 0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:28.080 What kind of things are you looking out for specifically? 0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:30.800 So you know, if Brad says he wants to buy 0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:33.560 a company, I'm sure he gets lots of information like 0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:37.640 printed information as part of the due diligence process, and 0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:41.600 then he has interviews with senior executives. What type of 0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:43.480 questions would you be asking them. 0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:48.360 There are multiple areas of probing that we do. Number 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:53.000 one is first and foremost, is are there any problems 0:05:53.200 --> 0:05:57.840 or circumstances associated with the acquisition that are not a 0:05:57.880 --> 0:06:01.520 matter of record that no vera one has come forth 0:06:01.600 --> 0:06:04.560 and said, hey, this is a problem or might be 0:06:04.640 --> 0:06:09.520 a problem going forward. And so to gather that information 0:06:10.279 --> 0:06:13.599 Usually the first encounter is with a management meeting, where 0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:19.600 we sit down in front of management and ask them questions. Now, granted, 0:06:20.360 --> 0:06:24.800 the topics are fairly traditional, but the way that we 0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:31.480 word questions sometimes are very different. For example, on the 0:06:31.560 --> 0:06:35.919 really key issues, we rarely will ask a did you 0:06:36.360 --> 0:06:39.359 or do you so? For example, we won't say do 0:06:39.400 --> 0:06:42.360 you have any concerns in this area? We use what 0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:47.280 we call presumptive questions. And a presumptive question might sound 0:06:47.320 --> 0:06:50.680 simply like what concerns do you have in this area? 0:06:51.240 --> 0:06:55.640 It presumes that there's potential for a concern. The beauty 0:06:55.680 --> 0:06:59.400 of that type of a question is that if a 0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:03.520 person is telling the truth, it's still a very easy 0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:08.200 and fair question to answer. However, if a person is 0:07:08.320 --> 0:07:13.880 concealing something and we ask it presumptively, it generally and 0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:18.679 often plants what we call a mind virus. The mind 0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:22.360 virus is that thing that we've all been victims of. 0:07:22.960 --> 0:07:25.400 It's when you know, somebody walks in the door in 0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:28.360 the morning and their coworker comes running up and says, 0:07:28.760 --> 0:07:30.880 you know, Joe, the boss wants to see you, and 0:07:30.920 --> 0:07:34.640 you say, well, what's that about, and you know, they say, 0:07:34.680 --> 0:07:37.920 I don't know but but right away and as Joe's 0:07:37.920 --> 0:07:40.960 walking down there, is he likely thinking more, Geez is 0:07:41.040 --> 0:07:42.360 going to be a great day, I'm going to get 0:07:42.360 --> 0:07:45.440 a bonus, I'm going to get a promotion. Or does 0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:49.800 he immediately start thinking what's wrong? Or is there a problem? 0:07:49.880 --> 0:07:53.640 And if it is, then he's inventorying mentally what the 0:07:53.720 --> 0:07:56.680 problems might be and how he's going to deal with that. 0:07:56.680 --> 0:08:02.880 That mind virus triggers if someone's lying, it often triggers 0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:09.840 the exhibition of deceptive behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. 0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:13.400 I already love this conversation so much, but let's continue 0:08:13.520 --> 0:08:16.960 to pursue. I imagine that when you're doing due diligence 0:08:17.000 --> 0:08:20.040 on a company, you know it's the unknown unknowns, it's 0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:21.560 the things that aren't written down. But you don't even 0:08:21.560 --> 0:08:24.000 know the right question to ask because it's not written down. 0:08:24.600 --> 0:08:28.080 But as you say the presumptive approach, talk to us 0:08:28.120 --> 0:08:32.560 about like, okay, take the example further with a question 0:08:32.760 --> 0:08:35.400 like that, what are the types of responses that would 0:08:35.400 --> 0:08:38.880 say trigger warning lights of either it's verbally or physically, 0:08:39.160 --> 0:08:39.840 this looks. 0:08:39.640 --> 0:08:40.240 Like a lie? 0:08:40.559 --> 0:08:44.520 Like what might be gleaned in the response and to 0:08:44.559 --> 0:08:45.680 such a question, sure. 0:08:46.080 --> 0:08:49.200 In working with Brad, we've had all kinds of when 0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:53.240 people are lying, all kinds of crazy responses. We've had 0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:56.920 responses where we've said or made just simply the statement 0:08:57.000 --> 0:09:00.079 listen in describing our diligence, we are also going to to, 0:09:00.200 --> 0:09:02.079 you know, come in and take a look at your accounting, 0:09:02.640 --> 0:09:05.560 and the person immediately says, oh, there's no need to 0:09:05.600 --> 0:09:08.280 do that. And you'd think that they would realize how 0:09:08.320 --> 0:09:12.760 obvious that that dodge is the spot, But at the 0:09:12.880 --> 0:09:16.199 moment they're on the spot and they need it out, 0:09:16.320 --> 0:09:19.680 and so they're not realizing the kinds of responses they give. 0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:23.000 They'll also say, well, why do you need to go there? 0:09:23.160 --> 0:09:25.680 Or why are you asking that? Or how much do 0:09:25.720 --> 0:09:29.199 you need to know? Or here's what I can tell you. 0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:33.160 And that's an interesting statement we hear and we listen for, 0:09:33.640 --> 0:09:37.719 because if you think of the literal interpretation of that 0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:41.400 statement here's what I can tell you, it immediately in 0:09:41.440 --> 0:09:44.480 our world conjures up. What can't you tell us? 0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:49.319 Do people try to deflect? Having interviewed many people on 0:09:49.320 --> 0:09:53.400 this podcast, the most problematic response that we tend to get, 0:09:53.440 --> 0:09:57.079 hopefully not outright lies at least not often, but you 0:09:57.120 --> 0:09:59.240 ask a question and someone will say, oh, that's very 0:09:59.320 --> 0:10:02.640 very interesting. Now let me talk about this entirely different 0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:05.080 point that has nothing to do with what you just asked. 0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:09.319 That could be a product of their media training, but 0:10:09.920 --> 0:10:14.960 it also could be if it's accompanied by other deceptive behaviors. 0:10:15.480 --> 0:10:17.559 And if we talk a little bit later about the 0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:23.200 model for detecting deception, clusters are an important component of 0:10:23.200 --> 0:10:26.960 that model. So more than just one deceptive behavior in 0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:30.640 response to a stimulus, meaning a question or a statement, 0:10:31.320 --> 0:10:36.000 that's what gets our attention. And so when they start 0:10:36.040 --> 0:10:40.600 that deflection, deceptive people know that they can't just sit 0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:43.320 there like the proverbial bump on a log and say nothing. 0:10:43.360 --> 0:10:46.880 They have to say something. And so what they often 0:10:47.040 --> 0:10:49.679 do is we'll try to lead us as stray by 0:10:49.720 --> 0:10:52.840 talking about something they can comfortably talk about that you 0:10:53.240 --> 0:10:56.480 might be interested to you and perhaps even a suage. 0:10:56.880 --> 0:10:59.079 You know, what concerns they think you might have. 0:11:00.160 --> 0:11:03.920 Are lies in the business world different or do they 0:11:04.080 --> 0:11:09.480 exhibit different qualities to lies outside of the business world. 0:11:09.480 --> 0:11:14.320 So I guess in criminal activity or maybe in intelligence gathering, 0:11:14.440 --> 0:11:17.000 going back to your career at the CIA, are there 0:11:17.080 --> 0:11:19.599 differences in the way those lies benifest. 0:11:19.920 --> 0:11:25.760 The primary difference is tracy are the topics, but in reality, 0:11:26.240 --> 0:11:31.680 the lying the behaviors remain the same. They're intrinsic to 0:11:31.760 --> 0:11:36.920 human nature, and we have a very specific list of 0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:42.160 behaviors that we are looking for. The biggest problem in 0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:46.559 spotting lies if people are not trained, is when they 0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:51.319 see something odd that happens, or something different or uncomfortable, 0:11:51.880 --> 0:11:55.680 their instincts may kick in, but they might not recognize 0:11:55.760 --> 0:12:00.280 what's going on, and they're only guessing at that point 0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:02.280 as to whether they've just heard a line or not. 0:12:17.720 --> 0:12:19.840 Why do we back up and talk about the framework 0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:22.360 or the model that you first developed at the CIA. 0:12:22.440 --> 0:12:25.640 I imagined that over the years it's been refined more 0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:27.960 examples and you get better and better at applying it. 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:29.960 Why don't you just sort of just bring us back to, like, 0:12:30.160 --> 0:12:32.840 what are the core, like underpinnings of your approach. 0:12:33.280 --> 0:12:39.360 The core is that we have codified the behaviors, so 0:12:39.520 --> 0:12:43.000 meaning that we've picked the behaviors that we know through 0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:47.839 research and anecdotal evidence are the most reliable indicators. What 0:12:47.880 --> 0:12:51.000 we learned in the early days is that many of 0:12:51.040 --> 0:12:55.760 the traditional behaviors that we thought were good were not 0:12:56.720 --> 0:13:01.439 and for example, take an eye contact for exams. Eye 0:13:01.440 --> 0:13:06.360 contact is not nearly as reliable as people would think 0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:08.080 it to be. Fact. 0:13:08.200 --> 0:13:10.520 Yeah, now, both me and Tracy a big relief on that. 0:13:11.000 --> 0:13:15.120 Yeah yeah. Eye contact can be very different, especially in 0:13:15.160 --> 0:13:19.840 different cultures, in different regions. I'm here in New York City. 0:13:20.840 --> 0:13:22.840 You know, if I were to walk down the street, 0:13:22.880 --> 0:13:25.320 you know and smiling and saying hi to people and 0:13:25.360 --> 0:13:28.680 so forth, that wouldn't look very good, right, or it 0:13:28.679 --> 0:13:31.120 probably wouldn't go over very well. But in the little 0:13:31.160 --> 0:13:33.880 town where I live in the reverse would be true. 0:13:33.920 --> 0:13:36.000 If I if I didn't smile, or if I didn't 0:13:36.040 --> 0:13:39.480 you know, nod, or even you know, verbally greet someone, 0:13:40.040 --> 0:13:43.360 they'll walk away with a different opinion. And so the 0:13:43.480 --> 0:13:48.040 eye contact piece is just simply not as reliable as 0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:50.839 we need it to be. The anecdotal evidence in our 0:13:50.880 --> 0:13:54.880 world uh supports that, as as well as some major 0:13:54.920 --> 0:13:58.040 research studies. Two in particular, one in the US and 0:13:58.080 --> 0:14:03.200 one in London, strongly suggests that the deceptive person often 0:14:03.280 --> 0:14:07.160 has better eye contact than the truthful person does, highly 0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:08.760 likely because they're forcing it. 0:14:10.040 --> 0:14:10.280 You know. 0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:14.200 Earlier I was using the term bs and lie sort 0:14:14.240 --> 0:14:17.800 of interchangeably, but they're not exactly the same thing. And 0:14:17.840 --> 0:14:20.840 in the business world, one thing that tends to happen 0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:25.920 is you have people telling a good story about their business, 0:14:26.080 --> 0:14:29.240 and the story, you know, it might even be true. 0:14:29.320 --> 0:14:35.240 That might be the way particularly ambitious executive sees things unfolding. 0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:37.520 I guess what I'm getting at is, how do you 0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:41.720 tell the difference between an outright lie saying something fraudulent 0:14:42.040 --> 0:14:45.880 about their business versus someone who's like trying to sell 0:14:46.080 --> 0:14:49.800 the optimistic best case scenario story. 0:14:50.040 --> 0:14:52.440 Okay, first of all, let me go back to the 0:14:52.440 --> 0:14:57.760 model itself. In the model, we're monitoring both their verbal 0:14:57.840 --> 0:15:01.680 behavior or what's commonly been refined to a body language, 0:15:02.040 --> 0:15:07.920 and we're also monitoring their nonverbal behavior. What I said earlier, 0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:10.560 we're monitoring their verbal behavior is what they say. The 0:15:10.680 --> 0:15:15.000 nonverbal is obviously what they don't say. And those both happened, 0:15:15.200 --> 0:15:20.080 you know, often simultaneously or or in conjunction with a 0:15:20.120 --> 0:15:25.040 single response to a particular stimulus, and we're picking up 0:15:25.160 --> 0:15:28.040 on both of those. Now, what are we picking up? 0:15:28.600 --> 0:15:32.520 All of the behaviors that we use fit into five 0:15:32.760 --> 0:15:39.160 psychological buckets. The first bucket is the evasion bucket. Okay, 0:15:39.280 --> 0:15:42.600 these are These are behaviors such as, you know, failing 0:15:42.640 --> 0:15:47.280 to answer the question or qualifying the question. They're not 0:15:47.400 --> 0:15:50.840 giving you some or all of what you want from them. 0:15:51.440 --> 0:15:55.680 The second one is this persuasion bucket. And this is 0:15:55.720 --> 0:15:58.400 kind of tracy where you were leading to if I 0:15:58.600 --> 0:16:01.920 if I heard you correctly, where someone's trying to tell 0:16:01.960 --> 0:16:05.960 you something positive or good because they can't tell you 0:16:06.040 --> 0:16:09.320 the truth because the truth has consequences to it, so 0:16:09.360 --> 0:16:14.040 they start using convincing statements, Oh, we would never do that. 0:16:14.160 --> 0:16:17.520 We're a great company, we've been around forever, We've got 0:16:17.520 --> 0:16:21.200 the best team in the industry. And they're trying to 0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:25.240 convince you that you don't have to worry about, you know, 0:16:25.280 --> 0:16:28.720 whatever it is or whatever topic that you surface to them. 0:16:29.080 --> 0:16:33.720 The third behavior is aggression behavior, sometimes referred to as 0:16:33.760 --> 0:16:39.720 attack behavior. Sometimes it's very visibly or visible, other times 0:16:39.760 --> 0:16:42.480 it's more nuanced. So for example, you ask someone a 0:16:42.560 --> 0:16:46.800 question and they say why are you asking that? And 0:16:47.040 --> 0:16:49.720 or sometimes they say why are you asking me that? 0:16:50.200 --> 0:16:54.520 You guys always ask these things. I've gone from you know, 0:16:54.560 --> 0:16:57.160 to five different banks today, and it seems like every 0:16:57.240 --> 0:17:01.040 single person has this has fixated on this issue, and 0:17:01.080 --> 0:17:04.359 so forth. They're trying to get you to back off. 0:17:05.280 --> 0:17:08.840 The fourth behavior is what we call manipulation. This is 0:17:08.920 --> 0:17:13.800 where they're manipulating the circumstances of the interaction to their favor. 0:17:14.240 --> 0:17:17.240 A good example of that is when you ask them 0:17:17.280 --> 0:17:22.720 a question and they repeat your question. Now, you might say, well, geez, 0:17:22.720 --> 0:17:25.640 what value does that bring to them? Well, the value 0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:30.720 is that we think about ten times faster than we talk, 0:17:31.320 --> 0:17:34.760 So in that second or two to repeat the question 0:17:35.359 --> 0:17:40.240 could equate to twenty seconds of material to say or 0:17:40.359 --> 0:17:43.919 strategy to pursue, and that's how they stay up with it. 0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:46.359 That was good media training, right. If you need to 0:17:46.359 --> 0:17:48.960 buy yourself a little bit of time to formulate the 0:17:48.960 --> 0:17:51.240 thoughts in your head, you repeat the question or say 0:17:51.280 --> 0:17:55.600 something nonscript what a great point, Joe, thank you so 0:17:55.720 --> 0:17:56.760 much for bringing that up. 0:17:57.119 --> 0:18:00.720 A non answer statement is another one in the manipulation bucket, 0:18:01.000 --> 0:18:05.159 and for the same purposes, it's buying time. The fifth 0:18:05.160 --> 0:18:09.720 and final bucket is the reaction bucket, and this is 0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:15.280 again the body language when people respond either as a 0:18:15.320 --> 0:18:19.239 result of the fight, flight or freeze response, or there 0:18:19.240 --> 0:18:22.040 are a couple of other things that aren't caused necessarily 0:18:22.080 --> 0:18:26.040 by that response. For example, something we call a verbal 0:18:26.160 --> 0:18:30.880 nonverbal disconnect, where you ask someone a question and they're 0:18:30.920 --> 0:18:34.520 saying no, I wouldn't do that, and at the same 0:18:34.600 --> 0:18:38.040 time they're nodding their head yes in response to the question. 0:18:38.119 --> 0:18:40.720 You see that kind of thing. But the other big one, 0:18:41.160 --> 0:18:45.120 two big ones in the reaction bucket are when people 0:18:45.760 --> 0:18:49.200 have anchor point movements in response to something you ask 0:18:49.280 --> 0:18:52.400 them or see them. I remember, early in the early 0:18:52.480 --> 0:18:55.359 days when I first started working in the investment world 0:18:55.800 --> 0:18:58.479 at a hedge fund, and I was sitting there with 0:18:58.560 --> 0:19:02.760 the hedge fund manager interviewing a management team, and I 0:19:02.840 --> 0:19:07.000 remember he asked someone a very direct question about what 0:19:07.480 --> 0:19:10.760 the street was saying was a problem, and the moment 0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:14.520 he started answering the question, he reached across the table 0:19:14.560 --> 0:19:19.480 and started making huge sweeping gestures on the table. And 0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:23.919 we call those grooming gestures or anchor point movements. And 0:19:23.960 --> 0:19:27.200 it can be as simple as a swivel in the chair, 0:19:27.600 --> 0:19:31.600 a leaning forward after answering, or in the midstore or 0:19:31.640 --> 0:19:34.719 in preparation for answering your question leaning backwards. 0:19:35.920 --> 0:19:38.200 In the case of the sweeping of the table that 0:19:38.320 --> 0:19:42.919 they has, what is the respondent doing there implicitly or 0:19:42.960 --> 0:19:45.800 why is that what makes that a tell or a edwy. 0:19:46.040 --> 0:19:49.280 From a psychological standpoint, what he's doing is cleaning up 0:19:49.320 --> 0:19:53.359 the surroundings. He in his mind, is making life better 0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:56.960 at that moment, because right now life's terrible because he 0:19:56.960 --> 0:20:00.960 doesn't have a great answer to the question. And that example, 0:20:01.000 --> 0:20:03.400 by the way, the company went under a few weeks 0:20:03.480 --> 0:20:08.440 later for the exact issue that he was doing. That's sweeping. Now, 0:20:08.600 --> 0:20:12.800 we don't rely on any one of these behaviors in 0:20:12.840 --> 0:20:15.960 response to the question. We're looking for a cluster two 0:20:16.080 --> 0:20:21.080 or more deceptive indicators will tell us immediately that we 0:20:21.200 --> 0:20:24.960 have more work to do. More work simply means not 0:20:25.080 --> 0:20:28.199 that we're leaping to judgment, but that we're going to 0:20:28.240 --> 0:20:31.960 ask more questions, We're going to follow up, or we're 0:20:31.960 --> 0:20:34.680 going to talk to somebody else once they leave whatever, 0:20:34.880 --> 0:20:38.720 or do research whatever. More work means. But the beauty 0:20:38.720 --> 0:20:42.679 of it is is that we don't get snookered, so 0:20:42.800 --> 0:20:43.320 to speak. 0:20:44.080 --> 0:20:47.960 How often do you get false positives where you're interviewing 0:20:47.960 --> 0:20:51.159 someone and you think this person is lying or there 0:20:51.200 --> 0:20:53.840 are some bread flags here to suggest that maybe he's 0:20:53.840 --> 0:20:56.600 not being one hundred percent truthful, and then you go 0:20:56.680 --> 0:20:59.960 out you do additional info gathering as you were just describe, 0:21:00.280 --> 0:21:02.840 and you find out, actually, maybe he's just a weird 0:21:02.880 --> 0:21:05.200 guy or socially awkward or something like that. 0:21:05.280 --> 0:21:07.160 Sure, Sure, he just likes to straighten up the table. 0:21:07.320 --> 0:21:14.160 Yeah, very meticulous individual. More often than not not likely 0:21:14.240 --> 0:21:16.240 to see. But if we're going to see one, it's 0:21:16.359 --> 0:21:19.720 likely going to be in a situation where we're dealing 0:21:19.800 --> 0:21:24.880 with multiple issues. So, for example, for Bradford years, we've 0:21:24.920 --> 0:21:28.080 done a ton of employment pre employment screening, especially for 0:21:28.160 --> 0:21:32.359 the senior executives, and there may be more than one 0:21:32.520 --> 0:21:35.560 lie or more than one problem that they're worried about, 0:21:35.720 --> 0:21:40.280 but because of something called psychological set, it means that 0:21:40.400 --> 0:21:45.840 they have a fixation or fear on one particular area 0:21:45.880 --> 0:21:49.120 of deception and they're not nearly as worried as much 0:21:49.119 --> 0:21:53.240 about the other areas, And so most of their behavior 0:21:53.320 --> 0:21:57.400 comes out on that particular issue that they're worried about, 0:21:58.040 --> 0:22:01.320 and as a result, we may miss you know, which 0:22:01.320 --> 0:22:05.280 would be a false negative. But if our bias has 0:22:05.440 --> 0:22:08.240 the pitchfork effect, in other words, we're thinking, oh, that 0:22:08.320 --> 0:22:11.200 this guy's not telling the truth about anything, then we're 0:22:11.240 --> 0:22:14.960 starting to see false positives, and it happens I. 0:22:14.920 --> 0:22:17.960 Mean, I know you mentioned that eye contact is not 0:22:18.359 --> 0:22:22.199 as robust as maybe people imagine in popular belief. But 0:22:22.280 --> 0:22:24.720 I'm curiously in a world where more and more is 0:22:24.760 --> 0:22:29.560 done zoom digitally, et cetera. Have you had to update 0:22:29.640 --> 0:22:32.119 your tactics at all our approach? Can you talk a 0:22:32.160 --> 0:22:35.080 little bit about lie detection in the pre and post 0:22:35.400 --> 0:22:35.840 zoom era. 0:22:36.119 --> 0:22:40.240 Sure. We always, if we can, want to be doing 0:22:40.280 --> 0:22:44.080 the interaction in person and in particular when we're there, 0:22:44.640 --> 0:22:48.280 whether we can do it overtly or even covertly, we 0:22:48.359 --> 0:22:52.040 want to head to toe observance of them as we're 0:22:52.040 --> 0:22:55.600 talking to them, because the behavior can leak out anywhere. 0:22:55.920 --> 0:22:59.560 For example, you know, we know that the feet are 0:22:59.600 --> 0:23:03.000 always an anchor point, and if the fight or flight 0:23:03.040 --> 0:23:06.639 response kicks in, it will often go to the feet first, 0:23:06.720 --> 0:23:11.120 because that's our primary anchor point in life, and that's 0:23:11.160 --> 0:23:13.840 what gets us out of trouble, that's the escape mode 0:23:13.880 --> 0:23:16.760 and so forth. So we want to be able to 0:23:16.760 --> 0:23:21.159 see those In the zoom we lose a lot. We 0:23:21.320 --> 0:23:25.040 lose at least fifty percent of the reaction bucket, and 0:23:25.119 --> 0:23:28.320 so we rely very heavily then or more heavily even 0:23:28.680 --> 0:23:32.359 on the other four buckets, because those are all almost 0:23:32.359 --> 0:23:35.480 completely related to the verbal activity. 0:23:36.080 --> 0:23:39.080 What about eye contact in zoom, because I will admit 0:23:39.119 --> 0:23:42.000 I have a hard time focusing my eyes on zoom calls, 0:23:42.040 --> 0:23:44.159 partially because I don't want to look at the screen 0:23:44.320 --> 0:23:47.200 and see myself when I'm talking. It's just very awkward, 0:23:47.400 --> 0:23:49.200 so I sort of look off in the distance. 0:23:49.240 --> 0:23:52.840 Does that mean anything, No, Tracy, there are people that 0:23:52.880 --> 0:23:57.080 will tell you the opposite, But our research and again 0:23:57.119 --> 0:24:00.280 the anecdotal evidence, and a lot of your taxpayers he 0:24:00.640 --> 0:24:03.880 has gone to, you know, to invalidate some of that. 0:24:04.480 --> 0:24:07.439 When you're on zoom, one of the biggest problems you 0:24:07.560 --> 0:24:10.840