zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. gkanai+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-21 05:07:15
Bloomberg's Odd Lots Podcast had an ex-CIA officer, Phil Houston, on in April of 2024. He was promoting a new book but he had a lot of great advice for anyone to use regarding 'tells' when people are lying. Murati was clearly lying- that's obvious then and now.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-ex-cia-officer-expl...

replies(2): >>coolan+W8 >>IceDan+Fx
2. coolan+W8[view] [source] 2024-05-21 06:43:16
>>gkanai+(OP)
Could you explain what "to use regarding 'tells'" means in this context?
replies(1): >>applec+ba
◧◩
3. applec+ba[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 06:54:42
>>coolan+W8
A "tell" in this case is domain-specific terminology to denote a behavior that provides information that the person may have been trying to keep secret. I believe the term comes from poker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(poker)

4. IceDan+Fx[view] [source] 2024-05-21 10:17:47
>>gkanai+(OP)
Is there actually any evidence for this? AFAIK, other similar claims about people doing certain things when lying have been debunked(like fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, etc)
replies(1): >>j-bos+EE
◧◩
5. j-bos+EE[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 11:20:28
>>IceDan+Fx
It's context amd person to person specific, with many possibilities for false positives and negatives.
replies(1): >>nickle+tU
◧◩◪
6. nickle+tU[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-21 12:55:45
>>j-bos+EE
Right - the only reason Murati's behavior was "a tell" was that rational observers had a good reason to believe her statement was evasive and misleading, regardless of how she said it. In that context her emotional response is a funny (yet only barely rational) indication that she wasn't being honest. But trying to go the other direction - "her emotional response seems dishonest, what part of her statement was a lie?" - is as scientific as astrology[1], and a disaster for real people to use in real life. You'll quickly end up accusing innocent people for mean and bigoted reasons.

[1] Modern quack science might be worst than modern astrology/etc, since the stance of "I know it's not real, but..." means astrology folks can freely disregard horoscopes that are socially or ethically objectionable. If you're claiming your BS is actually Science, I think for a lot of people there's a sort of vicious feedback loop. Especially with social stuff, where these claims are essentially unfalsifiable. ("Body language reading is Science and cannot fail, it can only be failed by my incompetence.")

[go to top]