shifty-eyed vs bold-faced lie

I’ve just read that not making eye contact is a sign of dishonesty. (shifty-eyed)
With one very major exception, I’ve always found the exact opposite.

I prefer not to make eye contact while communicating. There are two reasons.

• One is that, as a person high in empathy, I get blasted by their emotions when I make eye contract.
• The other is that the cortical load from looking at eyes makes it impossible to concentrate. I concentrate best with my eyes closed.

I find that I can read someone’s emotions more accurately by concentrating on their voice alone, which I can only do by not looking at them. And I give them feedback the same way.

The only times I can remember lying to people is when I look them straight in the face and meeting their eyes while telling the lie (a bold-faced lie). Surprisingly to me, they’ve always believed me.

To me, looking someone in the eye is akin to violence, a battle of wills, a staring contest. Trying to make your own emotions dominate over theirs. If they’re not attempting to dominate me then they’re looking me in the eye in order to read me in order to do me ill.

I strongly distrust people who look me straight in the eye. People like politicians. I don’t trust politicians, at all.

I’ve never had anyone lie to me while not looking straight at me. But my daughter has. She was taken in by a, what’s the word, psychopath who tortured her with words without looking her in the eye. Though I assume that even there the psychopath started by lying bold-faced eye to eye and only switched to eyeless communication later.

I have a theory that the “shifty-eye” myth began when children who had lied to their parents looked away to avoid being hit by the anger in their parents eyes, and therefore avoiding eye contact came to be seen as a sign of disonesty when it wasn’t, when it was actually just a self-protection against anger.

I think I read somewhere that sustained eye contact with and between great apes is considered an act of violence preparatory to battle. And in other mammals the loser of a battle will not look at the winner (the so-called submissive posture) for fear that eye to eye contact will be treated as a threat requiring retaliation.

I don’t see that taking on a submissive/conciliatory posture of avoiding eye contact is a sign of dishonesty. Quite the reverse.

Is that what you find?

no

mollwollfumble said:

shifty-eyed vs bold-faced lie

I’ve just read that not making eye contact is a sign of dishonesty. (shifty-eyed)
With one very major exception, I’ve always found the exact opposite.

I prefer not to make eye contact while communicating. There are two reasons.

• One is that, as a person high in empathy, I get blasted by their emotions when I make eye contract.
• The other is that the cortical load from looking at eyes makes it impossible to concentrate. I concentrate best with my eyes closed.

I find that I can read someone’s emotions more accurately by concentrating on their voice alone, which I can only do by not looking at them. And I give them feedback the same way.

The only times I can remember lying to people is when I look them straight in the face and meeting their eyes while telling the lie (a bold-faced lie). Surprisingly to me, they’ve always believed me.

To me, looking someone in the eye is akin to violence, a battle of wills, a staring contest. Trying to make your own emotions dominate over theirs. If they’re not attempting to dominate me then they’re looking me in the eye in order to read me in order to do me ill.

I strongly distrust people who look me straight in the eye. People like politicians. I don’t trust politicians, at all.

I’ve never had anyone lie to me while not looking straight at me. But my daughter has. She was taken in by a, what’s the word, psychopath who tortured her with words without looking her in the eye. Though I assume that even there the psychopath started by lying bold-faced eye to eye and only switched to eyeless communication later.

I have a theory that the “shifty-eye” myth began when children who had lied to their parents looked away to avoid being hit by the anger in their parents eyes, and therefore avoiding eye contact came to be seen as a sign of disonesty when it wasn’t, when it was actually just a self-protection against anger.

I think I read somewhere that sustained eye contact with and between great apes is considered an act of violence preparatory to battle. And in other mammals the loser of a battle will not look at the winner (the so-called submissive posture) for fear that eye to eye contact will be treated as a threat requiring retaliation.

I don’t see that taking on a submissive/conciliatory posture of avoiding eye contact is a sign of dishonesty. Quite the reverse.

Is that what you find?

I noticed ScoMo did a statement yesterday and then he cast his eyes around looking for support. I presumed he was either lying or did not know what he was talking about.

sarahs mum said:

ScoMo did a statement yesterday and then he cast his eyes around looking for support. I presumed he was either lying or did not know what he was talking about.

don’t need to see no eye casting to reckon that

SCIENCE said:

no

So you believe politicians?

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

no

So you believe politicians?

I have no idea what those two letters mean in this context, but I very much doubt it is that.

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

no

So you believe politicians?

You didn’t even know who the NSW premier was un til a week ago so I’ll take your views on politicians with a grain of salt methinks.

body language reading is never a case of one size fits all.. it’s also never a case of one thing means the same in everyone. When suspects are interviewed by police, for example, they read the person and apply known ‘tells’ after a period of time.. they don’t apply the ‘tells’ to every person equally. to do this is poor analysis.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

no

So you believe politicians?

I have no idea what those two letters mean in this context, but I very much doubt it is that.

sorry indeed we meant

I don’t see that taking on a submissive/conciliatory posture of avoiding eye contact is a sign of dishonesty. Quite the reverse.

Is that what you find?

no

to expand, we find no practically significant correlation

Arts said:

body language reading is never a case of one size fits all.. it’s also never a case of one thing means the same in everyone. When suspects are interviewed by police, for example, they read the person and apply known ‘tells’ after a period of time.. they don’t apply the ‘tells’ to every person equally. to do this is poor analysis.

You mean those body language experts that appear on breakfast TV shows might be….wrong occasionally?

hey even one in a thousand punters will be able to get the predicted rise or fall of 8 stocks correctly straight off

I’d imagine I’m like most people in that I will seek eye contact at various points in a conversation but look elsewhere during much of it, depending on the duration of the dialogue.

Bubblecar said:

I’d imagine I’m like most people in that I will seek eye contact at various points in a conversation but look elsewhere during much of it, depending on the duration of the dialogue.

I can think of at least one person that moves their eyes into a certain position when they lie. I would say they are totally unware that they give themselves away in this way though.

Neophyte said:

Arts said:

body language reading is never a case of one size fits all.. it’s also never a case of one thing means the same in everyone. When suspects are interviewed by police, for example, they read the person and apply known ‘tells’ after a period of time.. they don’t apply the ‘tells’ to every person equally. to do this is poor analysis.

You mean those body language experts that appear on breakfast TV shows might be….wrong occasionally?

sorry for shattering illusions.

Arts said:

Neophyte said:

Arts said:

body language reading is never a case of one size fits all.. it’s also never a case of one thing means the same in everyone. When suspects are interviewed by police, for example, they read the person and apply known ‘tells’ after a period of time.. they don’t apply the ‘tells’ to every person equally. to do this is poor analysis.

You mean those body language experts that appear on breakfast TV shows might be….wrong occasionally?

sorry for shattering illusions.

It’s your life’s work, isn’t it?

;)

I think feeble minded people judge honesty on the basis of eye contact and handshakes and so forth but because there are many feeble minded influential people it is good to learn these skills.

“You’re an honest man Stuart, I can see it in your eyes.” – Dr Orloff (Bela Lugosi) in Dark Eyes of London (1939).

Diogenes spent all his gap year looking in peoples eyes with a Colman lamp, apparently.

probably some of peoples view regard eye contact is influenced by and distorted by television, TV there’s only limited space inside it, add a few people and some background stuff and you need adjust proximity, brings things closer together, and extra eye contact makes it feel more captivating, like these two people on the electric rectangle below, not sure who they are but they seem to be quite engaged

and of course there is news, news readers and reporters engaging their audience, much of which could be imaginary

About 20 years ago BBC TV did a 4-part series on the human face, called The Human Face. In one of the episodes they discussed the use of facial features to detect lying, reporting on an experiment in which a number of different occupational groups (including dentists, engineers, police, spies, etc) were placed on the other side of a two-way mirror observing a subject who made statements that were either true or false, and asked to determine, from observing the face of the subject, whether they were telling the truth or lying. The group that scored highest accuracy (up to 92%) was the spies, so the researchers asked them how they did it.

The spies all said that they watched the face for microexpressions — fleeting expressions that last for a fraction of a second, but only cross the face when the person lies, and are unconscious and uncontrollable. The programme showed a number of faces of people lying and truthtelling, to illustrate, then showed that famous video of Bill Clinton saying, “I did not have sex with this woman.” Once you knew what to look for, it was obvious.

btm said:

About 20 years ago BBC TV did a 4-part series on the human face, called The Human Face. In one of the episodes they discussed the use of facial features to detect lying, reporting on an experiment in which a number of different occupational groups (including dentists, engineers, police, spies, etc) were placed on the other side of a two-way mirror observing a subject who made statements that were either true or false, and asked to determine, from observing the face of the subject, whether they were telling the truth or lying. The group that scored highest accuracy (up to 92%) was the spies, so the researchers asked them how they did it.

The spies all said that they watched the face for microexpressions — fleeting expressions that last for a fraction of a second, but only cross the face when the person lies, and are unconscious and uncontrollable. The programme showed a number of faces of people lying and truthtelling, to illustrate, then showed that famous video of Bill Clinton saying, “I did not have sex with this woman.” Once you knew what to look for, it was obvious.

were the spies lying

btm said:

About 20 years ago BBC TV did a 4-part series on the human face, called The Human Face. In one of the episodes they discussed the use of facial features to detect lying, reporting on an experiment in which a number of different occupational groups (including dentists, engineers, police, spies, etc) were placed on the other side of a two-way mirror observing a subject who made statements that were either true or false, and asked to determine, from observing the face of the subject, whether they were telling the truth or lying. The group that scored highest accuracy (up to 92%) was the spies, so the researchers asked them how they did it.

The spies all said that they watched the face for microexpressions — fleeting expressions that last for a fraction of a second, but only cross the face when the person lies, and are unconscious and uncontrollable. The programme showed a number of faces of people lying and truthtelling, to illustrate, then showed that famous video of Bill Clinton saying, “I did not have sex with this woman.” Once you knew what to look for, it was obvious.

Takes one to know one, I suppose.

> to expand, we find no practically significant correlation

Thanks.
————————————

“eye contact is a practice that is discouraged by primatologists, as apes are likely to interpret eye contact as a challenge or a form of aggressive display.”

I react the same way with humans.

“The idea that eye contact conveys primarily an agonistic message in nonhuman primates has been supported by many experiments”.

This “suggests a theoretical framework for interpreting the significance of eye contact in humans”.

“Direct eye contact can, therefore, trigger the silverback to charge and fight you in defense of his family.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_contact

From that article:

“In a study conducted by British psychologists among 20 British children at the age of five, researchers concluded that children who avoid eye contact while answering questions are more likely to answer correctly than children who maintain eye contact. The process of looking at faces is mentally demanding and takes processing. Therefore, it’s unhelpful to look at faces when trying to concentrate and process something else that is mentally demanding.”

“In many cultures, such as in East Asia and Nigeria, it is respectful not to look the dominant person in the eye, but in Western culture this can be interpreted as being “shifty-eyed”, and the person judged badly because “he wouldn’t look me in the eye”; references such as “shifty-eyed” can refer to suspicions regarding an individual’s unrevealed intentions or thoughts. Nevertheless, the seeking of constant unbroken eye contact by the other participant in a conversation can often be considered overbearing or distracting by many even in western cultures”.

I suspect that the claim of being “shifty-eyed” is just name-calling by a warrior caused by frustration when the opponent refuses to participate in a battle of wills.

“In school, when being reprimanded the teacher might say something to the effect of “Look at me when I’m talking to you.” At home, if a parent is doing the reprimanding, making eye contact would make the situation worse.”

I would advise all students, when a teacher says “Look at me when I’m talking to you”, to stare at them with malevalent hatred.

“In Islam, it is generally advised to lower one’s gaze when looking at other people in order to avoid sinful sensuous appetites and desires. Excessive eye contact or “staring” is impolite, inappropriate, and disrespectful, especially between youths and elders or children and their parents, and so lowering one’s gaze when talking with older people is seen as a sign of respect and reverence. Japanese children are taught in school to direct their gaze at the region of their teacher’s Adam’s apple or tie knot. As adults, Japanese lower their eyes when speaking to a superior as a gesture of respect.”

Even:
“Some bodies of parliamentary procedure ban eye contact between members when speaking”.

mollwollfumble said:

> to expand, we find no practically significant correlation

Thanks.
————————————

“eye contact is a practice that is discouraged by primatologists, as apes are likely to interpret eye contact as a challenge or a form of aggressive display.”

I react the same way with humans.

“The idea that eye contact conveys primarily an agonistic message in nonhuman primates has been supported by many experiments”.

This “suggests a theoretical framework for interpreting the significance of eye contact in humans”.

“Direct eye contact can, therefore, trigger the silverback to charge and fight you in defense of his family.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_contact

From that article:

“In a study conducted by British psychologists among 20 British children at the age of five, researchers concluded that children who avoid eye contact while answering questions are more likely to answer correctly than children who maintain eye contact. The process of looking at faces is mentally demanding and takes processing. Therefore, it’s unhelpful to look at faces when trying to concentrate and process something else that is mentally demanding.”

“In many cultures, such as in East Asia and Nigeria, it is respectful not to look the dominant person in the eye, but in Western culture this can be interpreted as being “shifty-eyed”, and the person judged badly because “he wouldn’t look me in the eye”; references such as “shifty-eyed” can refer to suspicions regarding an individual’s unrevealed intentions or thoughts. Nevertheless, the seeking of constant unbroken eye contact by the other participant in a conversation can often be considered overbearing or distracting by many even in western cultures”.

I suspect that the claim of being “shifty-eyed” is just name-calling by a warrior caused by frustration when the opponent refuses to participate in a battle of wills.

“In school, when being reprimanded the teacher might say something to the effect of “Look at me when I’m talking to you.” At home, if a parent is doing the reprimanding, making eye contact would make the situation worse.”

I would advise all students, when a teacher says “Look at me when I’m talking to you”, to stare at them with malevalent hatred.

“In Islam, it is generally advised to lower one’s gaze when looking at other people in order to avoid sinful sensuous appetites and desires. Excessive eye contact or “staring” is impolite, inappropriate, and disrespectful, especially between youths and elders or children and their parents, and so lowering one’s gaze when talking with older people is seen as a sign of respect and reverence. Japanese children are taught in school to direct their gaze at the region of their teacher’s Adam’s apple or tie knot. As adults, Japanese lower their eyes when speaking to a superior as a gesture of respect.”

Even:
“Some bodies of parliamentary procedure ban eye contact between members when speaking”.

The military have the 1000 yard stare.

One way to detect a liar among men is the way they dress.

If a man wears a suit then he’s a salesman. It doesn’t matter what the official designation of his job is, he’s a salesman.
He has a persona that he wants to project, in order to hide his real narure, and that’s tantamount to lying.

Suit wearing was a great guide to liars some 40 to 20 years ago, but it isn’t reliable naw as more and more salesman eschew the suit for seemingly more casual garb. But still watch out for clean-shavenness and overly shiny shoes.

As for women, what do women wear when they wish to project a false persona? How do you pick “power dressers”? I can’t tell the difference.

mollwollfumble said:

One way to detect a liar among men is the way they dress.

If a man wears a suit then he’s a salesman. It doesn’t matter what the official designation of his job is, he’s a salesman.
He has a persona that he wants to project, in order to hide his real narure, and that’s tantamount to lying.

Suit wearing was a great guide to liars some 40 to 20 years ago, but it isn’t reliable naw as more and more salesman eschew the suit for seemingly more casual garb. But still watch out for clean-shavenness and overly shiny shoes.

Wah?

i have worked for companies where this was the dress code. We didn’t have to wear jackets in the summer, but it was still trousers, shirt with tie, and polished leather shoes.

my view is deceptions (tendencies) are universal, fairly much universal across the species, common, even ordinary, perhaps even mundane really, the tendency probably happens as a consequence of consciousness, including self-aware consciousness, and self-aware conscious machines (not organic perhaps, not human anyway) will have the same tendency, if such machines ever happen

more a significant difference is probably the individual capacity to study them, in self, or the willingness

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

One way to detect a liar among men is the way they dress.

If a man wears a suit then he’s a salesman. It doesn’t matter what the official designation of his job is, he’s a salesman.
He has a persona that he wants to project, in order to hide his real narure, and that’s tantamount to lying.

Suit wearing was a great guide to liars some 40 to 20 years ago, but it isn’t reliable naw as more and more salesman eschew the suit for seemingly more casual garb. But still watch out for clean-shavenness and overly shiny shoes.

Wah?

i have worked for companies where this was the dress code. We didn’t have to wear jackets in the summer, but it was still trousers, shirt with tie, and polished leather shoes.

Hello PP. Meet Moll…