As a former MI interrogator, this was part of my skillset.
For the average layman looking to spot lies within a complex story there is an exceptionally simply method known as reverse chronological testing
It works best for people you know are purposefully lying and you need a hook or a fallacy for proof.
1. Ask the person to recount their version of events.
> Oh so you went out with the girls at 7pm, then what happened...?
2. A liar will naturally add more detail to try and manufacture credibility. Do not interrupt. Let them ramble. Silence from you will solicit more imaginings from them.
3. At the end of the tale, immediately ask them to recount the events in reverse.
> Why this works : It is almost impossible for untrained personnel to factually recall imaginative events that have not actually occurred.
The brain has no factual reservoir from which to draw upon - the source material is fiction and does not lend itself to recall.
In essence; the liar is trapped in a world they are trying to simultaneously create and remember.
It's a hugely combative tactic though - if you use it, expect the situation to escalate hugely.
I suspect that if you interrogated me about last night and I wasn't attempting to lie to you that I would still fail this test.
I'm addle-brained, I don't get enough sleep, and I honestly don't remember if I got my daughter chocolate milk before or after diddling around on the computer.
I might very well remember events when asked to repeat them in reverse order that I did not remember the first time through, leave details out, or get the order reversed.
And while I can't manage to catch myself in the act while it is occurring, I've noticed myself having malleable memory of the likes that researchers tend to call "false memory". And this is just boring crap, nothing traumatic, stressful, or important.
If your test could fail for me recounting an evening at home for which I know I wouldn't be lying about, how could it possibly succeed for someone who's trying to prove to you that they aren't a killer, especially when they might have something else to hide (hey, I don't want this guy finding out I bought $1000 worth of pot to sell to my trashy neighbors in the trailer park!) ?
that is the point. If MI (or any other government force agency) got their paws on you, then you're guilty, and it is just a matter of routine effort to come up with what you're guilty of. The only choice you have is whether it happens a hard or an easy way... As they say in my old country - "for a given man, he always can be found guilty of something" (original - "byl by chelovek, a vina naydetsya" :)
The inherent bias and paranoia in your statement is staggering. Although, it's understandable if you come from a country with a particularly brutal and pervasive secret police.
In my country, the intelligence agencies have no powers of arrest and must defer to police enforcement.
To generalize the technique, it's basically (1) solicit detail repetitively and (2) wait for contradictions to show up in large quantities.
It's most effective in specific situations, like interrogations, because you have an important subject under discussion for which the lies pertain to.
In a setting like, say, "did you forget to call me last night?" it pays to remember that everyone lies instinctively and if you try to catch a lie, you will and it won't be worth it because it tells you nothing.
The technique you refer to already exists. It is distinct from reverse chronological.
Approaches are numerous and to the layman the differences seem like semantics but they each have a specific use (I went into some detail on another answer above).
However, something like "did you forget to call me last night?" is not a great example.
The RC technique works for complex scenarios such as an individual lying about their whereabouts over a considerable period of time (>hours).
It is not the technique of choice for specific incidents and in all honesty it would be useless.
It also not a data-driven technique based on contradictions since the entire narrative is largely fiction. The proof is the inability of the subject to recall what they have stated to be fact.
If you are interested, scrutiny by contradiction (the technique you kind of alluded to) is often accompanied by a sustained barrage of questioning. The two techniques together crack most liars quickly.
They are unable to maintain the contradictions under the constant assault of questioning eventually resigning to the questioner.
The best liars simply say nothing. Ever. Just simple denials/stonewalling followed by the occasional counter question.
That works against a remarkably stupid questioner who repeats the same question. More efficiently, so does this:
Did you steal it?
> No
Did you steal it?
> What makes you think asking the same question again will
get a different answer?
Did you steal it?
(Silence)
And in a court, the second question would prompt an objection of "asked and answered" for the same reason.
On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to. In particular, they'd ask questions for which it would be more unusual for someone to refuse to respond:
Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
Just because I typed up a quick example (which exactly exists and is used to crack a suspect in certain examples) you have launched into some sort of critique of one written example, of one segment, of one technique of one fictional scenario.
Then proceeded to offer a handful of lines of advice as if you are somehow rewriting the techniques of tactical questioners everywhere.
However, since you offered advice, let me offer you some.
1. We never specified we are in Court. That is not tactical questioning, it is cross examination and techniques exist for that.
2. >> On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to.
Actually they absolutely will not do that. They will begin by asking the subject to just walk them through the entire <insert event/subject> in it's entirety and without interruption.
3. >> Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
That is a horrible question.
Have you established they were in the area? Do you want confirmation of someone suspicious or something suspicious? Why have you asked a closed question? Have you defined the area? have you defined the timebox you are referring to in the area?
^^
I am being overly harsh but that is what happens when you try to impose your criticism on a tiny aspect of complex science.
> "Does it matter where I was? You just said I didn't steal it. So you believe me right?"
Now your questioning has gone off the rails and your subject has placed the emphasis on you justifying your reasoning.
Even the follow up questions you have utterly smack of a Columbo-like approach which really only works in movies.
> A: So let me confirm this one more time, you were busy last night, had dinner with your friend Bob, then went out for a drink?
Response : "Why do you need it confirmed? We have been over this. Are you asking if I was busy all night?"
^^
Not to mention in your own example you have proven why you would be terrible at this.
You wrote the answer of the subject as saying I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Then you tried to follow up with "...had dinner with your friend Bob.
At no point did the subject say that, they said they had dinner and then met Bob for a drink. So you are seeking a false confirmation for a version of events the questioner has manufactured.
However, something like "did you forget to call me last night?" is not a great example.
I bring this up more because this is the kind of thing most people are interested in lie detection for, and they're hoping to get an excuse to say "Aha! I caught you!" as if that was proof of anything.
Most people aren't in MI, or police detectives, which is the lion's share of relevance.
That technique is indeed the best. It creates another reality in the mind of the other person, where they doubt their own mind, solely by refuses to give any ground whatsoever. Quite manipulative, but effective.
In a setting like, say, "did you forget to call me last night?" it pays to remember that everyone lies instinctively
Everyone? My first reaction to that question would be "Apparently.", followed by trying to find out more detail (such as what I was supposed to have called about).
2. A liar will naturally add more detail to try and manufacture credibility. Do not interrupt. Let them ramble. Silence from you will solicit more imaginings from them.
I've heard the exact opposite, that a truthful account will include extraneous detail because those details are part of the true memory that the person is replaying in their mind.
That is not necessarily a contradiction. The reason that liars add detail is to mimick truth tellers, so it makes sense that truth tellers add details as well. The important difference is that truth tellers do not need to remember the details, because they already remember them, whereas the liar needs to remember the new details.
Having said that, as a lay person, I would be concerned about false positives. Memory is associative, so even with a truth teller, I would expect more detailed and accurate recollection when told in chronological order then reverse-chronological order.
Comments
As a former MI interrogator, this was part of my skillset.
For the average layman looking to spot lies within a complex story there is an exceptionally simply method known as reverse chronological testing
It works best for people you know are purposefully lying and you need a hook or a fallacy for proof.
1. Ask the person to recount their version of events.
2. A liar will naturally add more detail to try and manufacture credibility. Do not interrupt. Let them ramble. Silence from you will solicit more imaginings from them.
3. At the end of the tale, immediately ask them to recount the events in reverse.
The brain has no factual reservoir from which to draw upon - the source material is fiction and does not lend itself to recall.
In essence; the liar is trapped in a world they are trying to simultaneously create and remember.
It's a hugely combative tactic though - if you use it, expect the situation to escalate hugely.
I suspect that if you interrogated me about last night and I wasn't attempting to lie to you that I would still fail this test.
I'm addle-brained, I don't get enough sleep, and I honestly don't remember if I got my daughter chocolate milk before or after diddling around on the computer.
I might very well remember events when asked to repeat them in reverse order that I did not remember the first time through, leave details out, or get the order reversed.
And while I can't manage to catch myself in the act while it is occurring, I've noticed myself having malleable memory of the likes that researchers tend to call "false memory". And this is just boring crap, nothing traumatic, stressful, or important.
If your test could fail for me recounting an evening at home for which I know I wouldn't be lying about, how could it possibly succeed for someone who's trying to prove to you that they aren't a killer, especially when they might have something else to hide (hey, I don't want this guy finding out I bought $1000 worth of pot to sell to my trashy neighbors in the trailer park!) ?
that is the point. If MI (or any other government force agency) got their paws on you, then you're guilty, and it is just a matter of routine effort to come up with what you're guilty of. The only choice you have is whether it happens a hard or an easy way... As they say in my old country - "for a given man, he always can be found guilty of something" (original - "byl by chelovek, a vina naydetsya" :)
The inherent bias and paranoia in your statement is staggering. Although, it's understandable if you come from a country with a particularly brutal and pervasive secret police.
In my country, the intelligence agencies have no powers of arrest and must defer to police enforcement.
The test is not in isolation.
People seem to be imagining an interrogator walks in, opens his notes, asks for a reverse version of events and says
Aha, you originally said you left the house at 7, but in you reverse statement you indicate it was 7.30, case closed. This guy is done.
The reverse technique, one of dozens is used to test accuracy and clarity when required to do so with brevity.
In my example I imagined a wife being questioned by a husband as he suspects an affair.
Most people, when put under pressure and are lying will fail the RC test spectacularly.
The majority of truth tellers may clarify aspects in their mind but they will by and large get all of the details correct.
Either way, the test is not in a vacuum.
To generalize the technique, it's basically (1) solicit detail repetitively and (2) wait for contradictions to show up in large quantities.
It's most effective in specific situations, like interrogations, because you have an important subject under discussion for which the lies pertain to.
In a setting like, say, "did you forget to call me last night?" it pays to remember that everyone lies instinctively and if you try to catch a lie, you will and it won't be worth it because it tells you nothing.
Not quite -
The technique you refer to already exists. It is distinct from reverse chronological.
Approaches are numerous and to the layman the differences seem like semantics but they each have a specific use (I went into some detail on another answer above).
However, something like "did you forget to call me last night?" is not a great example.
The RC technique works for complex scenarios such as an individual lying about their whereabouts over a considerable period of time (>hours).
It is not the technique of choice for specific incidents and in all honesty it would be useless.
It also not a data-driven technique based on contradictions since the entire narrative is largely fiction. The proof is the inability of the subject to recall what they have stated to be fact.
If you are interested, scrutiny by contradiction (the technique you kind of alluded to) is often accompanied by a sustained barrage of questioning. The two techniques together crack most liars quickly.
They are unable to maintain the contradictions under the constant assault of questioning eventually resigning to the questioner.
The best liars simply say nothing. Ever. Just simple denials/stonewalling followed by the occasional counter question.
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
That works against a remarkably stupid questioner who repeats the same question. More efficiently, so does this:
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
Did you steal it?
(Silence)
And in a court, the second question would prompt an objection of "asked and answered" for the same reason.
On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to. In particular, they'd ask questions for which it would be more unusual for someone to refuse to respond:
Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
Do you know Bob?
Where were you at the time?
Do you know anyone who might have reason to ...?
Dunning Kruger in full swing here.
Just because I typed up a quick example (which exactly exists and is used to crack a suspect in certain examples) you have launched into some sort of critique of one written example, of one segment, of one technique of one fictional scenario.
Then proceeded to offer a handful of lines of advice as if you are somehow rewriting the techniques of tactical questioners everywhere.
However, since you offered advice, let me offer you some.
1. We never specified we are in Court. That is not tactical questioning, it is cross examination and techniques exist for that.
2. >> On the other hand, a better questioner would ask questions around the same area and try to find a question they can get a response to.
Actually they absolutely will not do that. They will begin by asking the subject to just walk them through the entire <insert event/subject> in it's entirety and without interruption.
3. >> Did you see anyone or anything suspicious in the area?
That is a horrible question.
Have you established they were in the area? Do you want confirmation of someone suspicious or something suspicious? Why have you asked a closed question? Have you defined the area? have you defined the timebox you are referring to in the area?
^^
I am being overly harsh but that is what happens when you try to impose your criticism on a tiny aspect of complex science.
Or go in circles.
A: Ok, you didn't steal it, but where were you last night?
B: I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Fast forward 20 minutes...
A: So let me confirm this one more time, you were busy last night, had dinner with your friend Bob, then went out for a drink?
Gauge their response, see if they correct you and say no, they met Bob after dinner, sticking to their original facts.
The answer to your first question would be
Now your questioning has gone off the rails and your subject has placed the emphasis on you justifying your reasoning.
Even the follow up questions you have utterly smack of a Columbo-like approach which really only works in movies.
Response : "Why do you need it confirmed? We have been over this. Are you asking if I was busy all night?"
^^
Not to mention in your own example you have proven why you would be terrible at this.
You wrote the answer of the subject as saying I went out after I had dinner to meet my friend Bob for a drink.
Then you tried to follow up with "...had dinner with your friend Bob.
At no point did the subject say that, they said they had dinner and then met Bob for a drink. So you are seeking a false confirmation for a version of events the questioner has manufactured.
I bring this up more because this is the kind of thing most people are interested in lie detection for, and they're hoping to get an excuse to say "Aha! I caught you!" as if that was proof of anything.
Most people aren't in MI, or police detectives, which is the lion's share of relevance.
Absolutely.
I only referred to one technique for checking the veracity of a complex story.
There is a reason this role exists as a trade with considerable training.
That technique is indeed the best. It creates another reality in the mind of the other person, where they doubt their own mind, solely by refuses to give any ground whatsoever. Quite manipulative, but effective.
Everyone? My first reaction to that question would be "Apparently.", followed by trying to find out more detail (such as what I was supposed to have called about).
2. A liar will naturally add more detail to try and manufacture credibility. Do not interrupt. Let them ramble. Silence from you will solicit more imaginings from them.
I've heard the exact opposite, that a truthful account will include extraneous detail because those details are part of the true memory that the person is replaying in their mind.
That is not necessarily a contradiction. The reason that liars add detail is to mimick truth tellers, so it makes sense that truth tellers add details as well. The important difference is that truth tellers do not need to remember the details, because they already remember them, whereas the liar needs to remember the new details.
Having said that, as a lay person, I would be concerned about false positives. Memory is associative, so even with a truth teller, I would expect more detailed and accurate recollection when told in chronological order then reverse-chronological order.
I would think anyone would make mistakes recounted what happened the night of the 15th (or whenever) last month.
I have a harder time reciting the alphabet backwards than forwards.
So?