People Who Read People: A Behavior and Psychology Podcast

Former Scientologist Chris Shelton spent thousands of hours using the e-meter to "audit" fellow members of the Church—but what does the device actually measure, and why do Scientologists trust it as an infallible guide to the truth? Chris takes us inside a typical auditing session, explaining the personal questions auditors ask, the needle movements they watch for, and what they believe those reactions reveal. We compare the e-meter with the polygraph, explore how relentless questioning can produce false memories and confessions, and examine how auditors can sincerely believe they are helping even when their methods become coercive or abusive. If you’re interested in Scientology, interrogation, or behavior reading, this is a fascinating look at how a simple machine can acquire enormous power through belief. For more on this topic, check out Chris’s podcast Speaking of Cults.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a 2014 deception detection study, Pete Blair made 33 judgments—and got all 33 right. That paper was titled “Expertise in deception detection involves actively prompting diagnostic information rather than passive behavioral observation.” I ask Pete about what the factors were in him getting 100% accuracy in that study, and we talk about the interplay between verbal and nonverbal behavior. Pete talks about the importance of context and domain knowledge in making high-confidence judgments, and he discusses how such insights will sometimes be based on aspects that we aren’t consciously aware of.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Zach Elwood, author of influential books on poker tells and host of the People Who Read People podcast, joins The Deductionist podcast for a wide-ranging conversation about what we can and can't learn from human behavior. Drawing on his years studying poker tells and consulting for high-stakes players, Zach explains why reading behavior in structured games like poker is fundamentally different from reading people in real-world situations like interrogations, negotiations, or everyday conversations. The discussion explores why nonverbal behaviors are almost always far less informative than what people say (and what they don’t say), why we can be drawn to overconfident behavior “experts" who promise certainty in uncertain situations, and how context and environment can dramatically change the meaning of behavior. We also discuss why some law enforcement professionals claim that understanding nonverbal behavior is hugely important in their work, while others claim it has close to zero impact. Sometimes, people are talking past each other, and thinking about entirely different aspects of behavior.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Polygraphs are a controversial tool in criminal investigations: critics argue they're too unreliable to trust, while proponents say that, even if they’re not perfect, they nonetheless can play a valuable role in helping uncover the truth. I talk with veteran polygraph examiner David Goldberg (executiveprotectiongrp.com), who has conducted more than 20,000 examinations over a 30-year career and who believes that, in the hands of a highly skilled examiner, polygraphs are far more accurate than most people realize. We discuss why he thinks innocent people should see nothing to fear when taking a polygraph, how experienced examiners distinguish deception from nervousness, how hiring processes use polygraphs, and why he sees interviewer skill—not the technology—as the biggest factor in accuracy. David talks about the granular details of how a polygraph examination is conducted, and the strategies he uses. Along the way, we explore the broader question that underlies so many debates about the polygraph and other uses of behavior analysis: when can information that's less than 100% reliable still be useful for making important decisions?
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In real or fictional criminal interrogation scenes, you've probably seen the approach where police barge in and confront the suspect with the evidence, trying to get them to crack and give a confession. In this talk, Maria Hartwig and Christian Cory explain why that doesn’t work well, and why a strategic use of evidence (SUE) approach, involving planning out the reveal of evidence, gets much better results. Maria is a well known researcher and trainer of criminal interviewing, and Christian is a 26 year law enforcement veteran. I talk to them about their and others' attempts to promote more science-based approaches to interviewing and interrogation. They are Co-Directors at the Aletheia Project (project-aletheia.org), which brings together researchers and law enforcement practitioners to improve interview techniques. We talk about their view that "old school" interrogations are built around a misguided "confession obsession," why bad ideas and exaggerated claims about nonverbel behavior and lie detection are so persistent and popular, and the downsides of lying to suspects about evidence. We talk about what the science really says about micro-expressions, and we explore why people seem so drawn to false, exaggerated ideas about reading behavior.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices