Categories
podcast

2026 WSOP Main Event 6th place winner on poker tell risks and rewards

Rami Hammoud finished 6th in the 2026 World Series of Poker Main Event, winning $1.75 million. Before the final table, he hired me (Zach Elwood) to study poker tells/behavior in the footage of his opponents. In this talk, Rami shares the story behind his journey to winning a life-changing amount of money, including how he almost left Las Vegas before the Main Event began, and how a mindset of having nothing to lose helped him play fearlessly. He talks about how studying poker tells transformed his approach to the game, sharing specific hands where behavioral clues helped him make decisions—and others where relying on such clues backfired. We discuss the psychology of high-stakes decisions, why even highly experienced poker players can be reluctant to trust behavioral reads, how the fear of looking foolish can lead to suboptimal decision-making. We also talk about some dynamics from the final table, including a call that many people thought was one of the worst calls in the history of WSOP Main Event final tables. This is a talk about risk, high-stakes decision-making, anxiety, confidence, and the way people can reveal hidden information through their behavior.

Episode links:

Related resources:

TRANSCRIPT

(part of transcript is generated automatically so there will be errors)

Rami Hammoud: This happened to me in a WSOP event in 2025. We were on the river. I have two pairs. My opponent was all in, and there was a straight possible on the board. And I was, like, 50/50. And so I was looking at him, and I noticed that he was taking, like, big gulps. Now, looking back at it, they were definitely exaggerated gulps that nobody takes. But at the time, it was the first time I see this and I’m like, “Oh my God, like, he’s gulping. Okay, he must be really, really nervous.” Like, damn, I was so close to folding, but that really switched it to me calling. And of course, he had the nuts. And I went to see him after. I’m like, “Dude, like, you were gulping so much.” He’s like, “Finally. I finally got someone with this.” So the guy had been doing this for, like, many years and he’s like, “I knew someday it would come, that someone would fall for it, and it would be worth it.”

Zachary Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with Rami Hammoud, who won $1.75 million in this year’s World Series of Poker Main Event by cashing in sixth place out of an entry field of more than 9200 players. This episode will discuss Rami’s journey to that life-changing tournament win; what his poker journey was like in the years prior to it, and in that event specifically; he talks about the strange experience of suddenly realizing he’s made more than a million dollars, and the surreal nature of all the attention, and the uniquely high-stakes nature of the situation. We talk about Rami’s views on poker tells, and how those views have changed over time. We talk about the rewards and risks of basing decisions in poker on small, subtle behaviors. We talk about Rami’s view of my work. 

My name is Zach Elwood and if you didn’t already know about my background, I’m a former professional poker player and my biggest claim to fame is having written some respected books on poker tells. If you’re curious about that work of mine, go to readingpokertells.com. So earlier this year, in June, Rami reached out to me after making the final table and wanted to know if I’d be up for consulting for him before the final table. He had a few weeks to prepare, and this meant there was time to examine the footage of Rami and his final table opponents from the footage leading up to the final table, and do some analysis. I’d done work like that before; this was actually my third time consulting for a World Series of Poker Main Event final table player. And as luck would have it, and as I told Rami, I’m actually at the peak of my game right now in terms of doing this work, because I’ve been consulting for the past year, several times a month, for a high stakes poker player; that consulting consists of watching livestreams with the hole cards hidden and the sound off, to go in bias-free and see what we see. That has been extremely educational for me. If you’re curious what that kind of consulting entails, check out the Consulting page on my readingpokertells.com website. 

So this work I did for Rami was what led to us talking for this episode. I thought it would be interesting to delve into Rami’s view of poker tells, and get into some nuance about those things that I rarely have discussed with anyone, especially publicly. We get into some specific hands from the World Series of Poker Main Event, including one hand that happened between the final two players, Jumalon and Saaskilahti, where Jumalon made an interesting verbal statement and then Saaskilahti made what many people were saying was arguably the worst call ever seen at a World Series of Poker final table. Whether you’re a poker player or whether you’re just interested in reading people or in decision-making under pressure, I think this episode has a lot of interesting stuff for a wide range of people.

I’ll mention too that I recently created one of the most complete and in-depth public resources I’ve ever put out there for poker tells. I honestly think it’s the best publicly available resource ever created on poker tells, at least one that is organized and has a bunch of info in one place; You can find it at www.readingpokertells.com/faqs, that’s readingpokertells.com slash FAQS for frequently asked questions. It includes some highly nuanced thoughts on some common questions. If you’ve listened to this podcast in the past, one question you might be wondering is: how is it that you so often criticize so-called body language “experts” like Joe Navarro and others, and their claims of being able to use nonverbal behavior, and yet be a proponent of using poker tells; so that question, and other in-depth questions, are addressed in that resource.

The first half of our talk is about Rami’s experience making the final table, and what that was like, so if you would rather skip to the more behavior- and poker-tells-related portion of our talk, skip ahead to about the 30 minute mark and it’ll start a little after that. 

Okay here’s the talk with Rami Hammoud, sixth place winner in this year’s World Series of Poker Main Event…

Rami Hammoud: Hey, how’s it going? It’s a pleasure to be here, man. Thank you for having me.

Zachary Elwood: Oh, yeah. No, really appreciate it. Um, maybe we could start with a little bit about how you view your journey winding up on the final table. Um, maybe you could talk a little bit a- about how many times you’ve, uh, played the World Series program main event, and how many tournaments, tournaments you play in general, how long you’ve been playing seriously, that kind of thing that led you to the final table.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. I’d be happy to. So I’m 36 years of age right now, and I started playing when I was 16. Um, it was a funny story. It was, uh, we were on a field trip to New York, and there’s rumors going around that our English teacher was a poker player. We were all shy. We would not ask him about it, so I finally mustered the courage to ask him some point.

I was like, “Hey, could you explain to us the rules of poker?” And I’ll never forget it, like, on the back of a napkin, he just wrote down the rules, right? And he gave it to me. And we ended up playing, like me and my friends, again, we’re like, we’re 16. We played, me and my friends, all night that night in, in New York.

We got in trouble for that, but that’s beside the point, and I just fell in love with the game, right? So I think… And I started off like most people do, you know, just playing with friends for $5, uh, sitting goes, and then that turned into like one cent, two cent cash games. And then when I became 18, um, ’cause that’s the legal age in where you can play and gamble here in, in, in Montreal at least, um, started playing casinos, playing cash games- And then I think it was 2015 or 2016, I got my first taste of a tournament win, and there is nothing like a tournament win, man.

It is so addictive, and I’m like, “This is what I want. I want this feeling again.” So I just, like, started focusing on tournament poker. And a- another thing that tournament provides to me is, like, look, I have my 9:00 to 5:00 job, right? And I really do see cash game, like, work. So I’m like, well, I don’t really need to, like, supplement my current work, my current career with another job, right?

Versus tournament is more like buying a lottery, right? Yeah. Like, look at the price. I’m like, oh my God, like, I can win, like, X thousands or millions of dollars, right? So I kinda enjoy that aspect. Um-

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, it’s a more exciting, like, one-time event thing. Yeah. Yeah, versus, like, an ongoing grind kind of thing, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: 100%, 100%. And, and, and, and don’t get me wrong, I’m, I’m not a cash game, you know, expert by any means, but even in terms of stimulation, I just don’t get stimulated by cash games. I feel like there’s just not that many variables. And again, I’m not saying like, oh my God, like, I would solve cash game. No, not at all.

But in tournaments, there’s just so many… Every hand is different because you have so many different variables, right? Mm-hmm. Obviously, you have, like, the, the blinds, the anti-structure, the stages in the tournament, the stack sizes are always different. In cash game you’re always deep, right? Um, ICM considerations, it’s just, like, so much more happening, right?

Um-

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, and the, and the chance of a big score- So, yeah … gets your blood pumping more than, you know, the, the, the ongoing steadiness of the cash gr- cash games, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And yeah, but, you know, poker for me has always been more of a recreational thing, and I did try doing this professionally back in, right after I graduated university, so this is when I was 23, and I tried it for six months.

And I remember the feeling that when the thing that you love the most, okay, the passion that you adore becomes your work, it all of a sudden loses that touch, and that’s what was happening to me, right? And not only that, but like, look, in my 9:00 to 5:00 job, if I have a bad performance or if I have good performance, I also get paid the same salary, right?

However, in poker, regardless of your performance, you can actually get, you know, pay cut, uh, pay deducted from you, right? And so imagine, like, having to lose, you know, having several losing sessions, and you kinda- you have to continue playing because this is your job. It was too stressful for me, man. So I knew fairly early, uh, in my life that poker was never gonna be sort of my primary source of income.

Right. But I always knew it was gonna be, like, my passion,

Zachary Elwood: right? I can definitely relate to that. I mean, from a, from an early time too, even including back when I played for a living for, like, three years, three and a half years. It never was something I n- I, I always knew I was never gonna do it long term, ’cause I, I, I’m, uh, I’m, I’m a pretty anxious person, and, like, the swings and kind of, like, the depressing nature of doing it for a long period too- Dude

it kind of really dragged on me, and, uh … Yeah, there were several factors where I was like, I can relate to that, where it’s like I, I, I never really wanted to play it for a living, even when I was doing it.

Rami Hammoud: And you were playing cash games, right, from what I remember, from what you wrote

Zachary Elwood: in your book? Yeah, I’ve never played- I think you were cash game

I’ve barely played tournaments. Yeah. Like, and I, I was gonna ask you about- Right … how many times you’ve played. Um, I’ve played a few- Yeah … tournaments, and I can, I can relate to the excitement, ’cause I’ve, I’ve never won one, but I’ve gotten close for some lower stage ones- Yep … and such. But yeah, I can relate to the excitement.

But I was curious, um, yeah, how many, how many times you’d, uh, entered the main event for one thing.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. A- and before I answer that, though, I also wanna say, like, I totally emphasize what you said- Poker, even till today, it definitely doesn’t bring the best out of me. It is a toxic environment, right? And I can truly tell you that when I’m at a poker table, it, it, it definitely doesn’t bring out the best in me, right?

Um, I’m, I’m more impatient, I’m surrounded by people that, you know, I wouldn’t say that the poker players are bad, but it’s not the, you know, the, the highest subset of group of, of, of people, right? Again, no, no disrespect to any poker players out there, uh, myself included, by the way. It’s not something that I wanna be doing every single day, and I have the utmost respect for people that do this for a living.

My God. And you know, people say like, “Oh yeah, like these guys, they have the freedom.” What freedom, man? These- We’re all- Like, they’re slaves to the game, right? That’s

Zachary Elwood: what, yeah. Like,

Rami Hammoud: of course-

Zachary Elwood: If you’re doing it for a living, it’s gonna be a grind at some level, unless you end up really lucky. But yeah, I, I can relate to everything you said.

I mean, I, I think I talk about this in my book even, that, um, playing poker full time and interacting with a lot of people in the live setting, it kinda made me… It, it brought out bad things in me. And, and, and again, like you said, everybody, I think it is important to emphasize everybody’s different, but I definitely liked myself less when I was playing a lot.

Like, I became more irritable, I became- I felt, like, more misanthropic- Mm-hmm … and these kinds of things, you know? And- Mm-hmm … it was something about that direct competition and being frustrated so often, you know? Um, yeah. Anyway, but carry on.

Rami Hammoud: Totally, man. Totally. I agree. Yeah, yeah. No, so I agree. I just want to, um, yeah, the- touch on that.

So, uh, main event. I started playing the main event in 2023, so I think it’s, like, what, four years now running. And it’s funny because the first three years, like, I don’t think I even made it ever… I never had over 100,000, right? So forget, like, money. I never even had, like, a decent stack at any point in time, right?

So definitely this run, um, gave me a lot of experiences that I had never experienced in previous iterations of the main event.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, that’s pretty good. And only did- So you did it three times, is that right?

Rami Hammoud: So three times plus this one, so four times in

Zachary Elwood: total. Oh, four times. Yeah, okay. So, uh, yeah, before we get into the poker tells, uh, kind of stuff, I was curious- Mm-hmm

I mean, how, how surreal was it to make the final table? Like, when- Is that, uh… Did you just- D- did it feel natural? Did it feel like, “Oh my God, I can’t believe I’m in this spot”? How, how, how did that feel for you?

Rami Hammoud: Natural or not. Um, you know, it’s like, it’s not even, it wasn’t even in my dreams to do this, right?

I know that a lot of people talk about like, “You need to believe, you need to believe.” Look, I’m more realistic. I’m like, look, I, I’m a numbers guy, I work in analytics. I know the probability of making the final table is very, very low, so it was never a belief, right? What I will say, though, is that during this run, I was quite disconnected from sort of the, the pressure that was bringing…

Especially up till Day 8, right? The final table itself was, was a bit of a different story, and I’ll tell you why. During this series, um, I was there for, like, two weeks or three weeks prior to the main event. Um, I was down like $20,000. And maybe for other poker players it’s not that much, but for me, you know, I’m a recreational poker player, 20,000.

I brought 21,000 with me, I was down to my last thousand. I’m like, “Dude,” like, “I’m, I’m done here.” Like, I really don’t wanna play anymore, you know? I’m fed up. I wasn’t playing well. We talked about, like, the toxic environment. I’m fed up. I wanna go home, you know? Every tournament that I was playing, I was busting within two hours before, like, the first break.

It was getting frustrating, and I’m like, “Look, I, I’m not, I’m not doing this for a living. I don’t have to stay here. I can go whenever I want,” right? And as fate may have it, um, I was walking around Vegas and I bumped into a poker player who’s from Montreal, which is where I reside. And I told my story and they’re like, “No, Rami,” like, “you must play,” like, you know, “If, if you, if you don’t wanna play,” like, “we’ll buy you in.”

And they really had the confidence in me and so I walked away from the conversation saying, like, “You know what? I should probably play this tournament.” Um, I had a thousand- Wow … dollars left. I- That’s a cool story. Yeah, yeah. I don’t- It is, yeah. I had a thousand dollars left, I played a satellite and, you know, again, as fate have it, I end up, um, making the, um, end, uh, getting the entry into the final table- Oh, it was a satellite

and so into the main event.

Zachary Elwood: I see, I see. I thought they were

Rami Hammoud: talking- Yeah, a satellite. So a thousand dollars- I thought they were, uh, talking into just- …

Zachary Elwood: into the main event … paying into it. I see, yeah. But that’s,

Rami Hammoud: that’s it. No, no, no, they were talking to me, they were talking to me into paying me into it. Oh.

Like, that was the deal. Oh. But like, I’m like, look, I don’t, I don’t wanna s- I don’t like selling action in general, right? So I’m like, look, if… It’s, that conversation gave me the confidence. If they have confidence in me- Oh, I see. I see … then I should probably have confidence in myself to play it, right?

Gotcha.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah,

Rami Hammoud: I gotcha. Um- I

Zachary Elwood: see.

Rami Hammoud: That’s cool … so yeah, so then end up playing it, but before entering this tournament, I’m like, look, if I’m gonna invest this money and this time, what’s going to be important for me is to maximize fun. I wanna make sure that I’m having a really good time this tournament, okay?

So that’s number one. So that mindset, all right? Number two, dude, I was ready to go home, man, which that’s why the mantra came up with, uh, the mantra that I had, which is, “I have a flight to catch.” And it was literal, okay? I would literally wake up in the morning, take my luggage, go to the front desk, check out, go play the day.

At the end of the day when I knew I was gonna play the next day, I would go back, get my luggage, and then book the, b- book the hotel, and then a rinse, repeat the next day, right? So look, I, I want to have fun, I didn’t really care, and that was, like, sort of the perfect recipe to sort of, you know, get me to where I wanted and make me feel, I guess- disconnected from it all.

Yeah. Right? Yeah. Essentially, like, it, it was only after day eight, it was only after we finished, I remember the, one of the first questions that interviewer asked me, ’cause it gets crazy. Once, once you become, like, once you, once the final table is set, they’re, like, getting you left and right to ask you questions.

And the first question that was asked to me was, “How does it feel to be a millionaire?” And I’m like, “What do you mean?” And I’m like, “Oh, shit. I’m a millionaire.” And it just hit me, right? So yeah, the run itself, it- it, up until day eight, up until the, the final table, I wasn’t really… I didn’t really understand what was happening, what we were playing for.

I was just there to have fun, man. I was just there to have a good time, you know, uh, acting the most genuine way possible, authentic to myself, and, and enjoy, enjoy my experience.

Zachary Elwood: Well, yeah, that stood out to me when, you know, when they did the, the little bit of interviews I watched during the final table, you talking about, uh, basically a really positive attitude of like, “Hey, we’re really lucky to be here, you know, this is th- this is an amazing experience no matter wh- how it ends up,” you know, and that kind of thing.

And th- yeah, that stood out to me- Yeah … as, you know, just as apart from the final table, it seems like, you know, just a great, um, a great way to view things no matter where you’re at, you know, viewing it in, in those terms. And, uh, it seems like it- sounds like from what you said, you were set up to basically have that attitude from the beginning of the tournament, where you were…

Yeah, you felt like you didn’t have anything to lose, and maybe that made you more comfortable making some, you know, being in the flow and making some plays that were risky and those kinds of things.

Rami Hammoud: Dude, not only was I ready to go home, but I was eager to go home at some point. So like that made, that allow me to play like a really, really crazy style at some point.

Zachary Elwood: Mm.

Rami Hammoud: You know, this wasn’t the same in my first three tries on the main event. I was playing like most of the players that played. It’s like as if my literal life was on the line. Right, right. Like if I lose, I die. Right, right. Right? That’s almost the display. Versus me this time around my fourth try, you know, it’s just like the perfect storm.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: So, you know- Yeah … if we go to next year, I don’t know if I can recreate that magic, right? Yeah. It’s really, really tough to recreate that sort of mindset, right? Like I can say it, I can verbalize it, but for example, I didn’t have that mindset at the final table, right? And I can talk about that a bit more- Mm

if you want. Yeah, let’s get-

Zachary Elwood: Uh, later on now up to you. L- let’s get to that, yeah, in a, in a little bit. I was gonna ask… Well, I was curious, you know, you seemed, um, you seem very comfortable on camera. I was curious, had- Mm-hmm … had you, uh, had you been on, featured in some media before? You just struck me as, as seeming quite comfortable in front of the cameras and such.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. No. No, man, quite the contrary. I’m quite introverted. Um, I’m highly anxious person. Uh, public speaking something that has been stressing me, especially in my adult life. But like I said, it, it was the perfect recipe, right? So, you know, I was there to have fun, I was ready to go home. But there’s also another pivotal moment that led to sort of this, this level of comfort, and it was on day six.

And so remember, there’s eight days, right, for our listeners, there’s eight days, and then after day eight, there’s a three-week pause, and then you play the final table, which is the final nine, okay? So on day six, it was the first time for me ever playing on stream, okay? So I didn’t know what it was like.

Mm. Um, it was of course a, a bit nerve-wracking. And as you know, Zach, like, there’s so many, there’s so many thoughts that go into your head when you’re playing poker, even if you’re not on stream, right? Like, so many decisions to take, so many variables to take into consideration. And then when I was on stream, I was thinking about thoughts that were intrusive that shouldn’t be there.

Like, okay, what are people gonna think about me? Yeah. What are my friends gonna think about me? What are poker players gonna think about my play, right? And so that’s just not a helpful part of the decision tree, right? So the next day, okay, I realized I, uh, my play was being impeded by this, right? So the next day in the morning, um, the morning of day seven, I called my close friends, okay, and I told them, “Look, guys, I don’t care what the world thinks about me.

What I care is what you guys think, okay? If I blunder, if I look like an idiot, will you still love me no matter what, right?” And of course they said, “Of course, Ranvir. Of course we’re gonna love you.” And it was quite an emotional, uh, conversation. Like, I teared a bit, you know? But after I sort of got that support from my friends and knowing that they have my back no matter what, like I was, I was ready to die at any point.

I was ready to look like the biggest idiot in the world. I had no fear anymore, you know, so bring on the streams, bring on the cameras, you know. I was ready to continue playing my game. I had all the freedom that I needed.

Zachary Elwood: No, that’s great. Yeah. I mean, I-

Rami Hammoud: Yeah …

Zachary Elwood: the first time I played on stream, it was j- I’ve only done it, like, two or three times.

It was just a low stakes thing on Live at the Bike I think years and, years and years ago. But I was shocked at how nervous it made me. It was like, for that same reason, I was like, I just kept getting in my head like, “What are, how are people gonna judge this play?” And it just made me not even be able to think about the decision.

So I mean, that’s great however you were able to unlock that, uh, flow state- Yeah … and not be worried about that. I mean, that’s amazing. ‘Cause you did feel, yeah, you felt very loose, which is, which is a great thing to accomplish, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah, yeah. And, and I’ll say, like, another point I wanna add also is, like, I- when you know you’re nervous, right?

I, at least for my kind of personality, I like to push myself out of the comfort zone, and I’ll give an example of this. I think it was on day seven, so this is talking about the cameras now. So on day seven, I was chip leading with f- 50 player, 50 players to go, and Jeff Platt, who’s the interviewer, he comes up to me and is like, “Hey, Ranvir, like, do you mind if I interview you in a couple of minutes?”

And like, like any introverted person that’s afraid of public speaking, my first reaction was like, “Fuck no, fuck no, fuck…” Can I swear, by the way?

Zachary Elwood: Oh,

Rami Hammoud: yeah. Am I allowed to swear?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Oh, great. So I was like, “Fuck no, fuck no, fuck no. Just say no, just say no, just say no.” But I’m like, man, how often am, am I gonna be chip leading in the main event with 50 players to go and getting interviewed by Jeff Platt?

So I’m like, you know what? F it. Let me just do it. If it doesn’t go well, whatever, I’ll never do interviews ever again, right? So I did it, and look, it wasn’t the best interview ever, okay? But looking back at it, it was like, okay, this is not bad, right? And then same with the streams. I looked at stream. Okay, it’s not too bad, right?

Then I did other interviews. And so it’s like this recursive evidence, right? That I was doing pretty well on camera, that it just gave me more sense of confidence and comfort to work with. And by the way, that has carried on till now. Like, for example, even this podcast, Zach. Like, had you asked me to do this last year, I’d be like, “Ah, I’m sorry.”

Find an excuse why not to do it, right? But here we are, because now I can be like, look, I’ve done a few of these. Podcast is a bit more long form. Let’s try it. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. It looks bad. Whatever. We move on. I’ll never do another podcast again, and that’s it, right?

Zachary Elwood: No, yeah. No, I mean, it sounds like this whole experience has, yeah, been many, many firsts and many unique experiences for you, and widened your views of things.

Yeah, that’s, that’s awesome.

Rami Hammoud: 100%. A, a lot of people ask me, like, “Oh yeah,” like, you know, “How’s the money gonna change you?” And I always say the same thing, like, the, the money’s great, don’t get me wrong, like, you know, the money’s fantastic. But for me, it’s, it’s the experience that it brought, brought with it, right?

And the pre- the experience and sort of the empirical evidence I can rely on in order for me to move forward in life, right? I think this, I’ll be able to parlay this for something bigger, I’m, I’m certain of that, right? So that to me is what I’ll, um, you know, hold on to the most.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, I don’t know if this is too personal, but, uh, you didn’t quit your day job, you kept doing what you were doing.

Is that true?

Rami Hammoud: Oh, yeah. Yeah, 100%, for multiple reasons. Um, number one, so I actually quit my job in June, and I had another job waiting for me in July, right? Now of course, in July I was busy for obvious reasons. Um, so they postponed my, uh, start date until August 10th, which was, like, literally a few days after the main event had done.

So, uh, the reason why I took that job was a couple reasons. Number one, I told them I was gonna start, and so I’m a quite loyal person, right? So if I give you my word, I’m gonna start, and they really need someone like me there. So- Mm. At least minimum, I was gonna give them a year. Like, let’s say I won $10 million, I was gonna give them a year and then see how I felt.

Number two, Zach, I was like, I was being glazed left, right, and center for a few months. I was the center of attention of everything. At some point, that gets to your mind, that gets to your ego, right? And for me, the best way to sort of get back to my regular life is to normalize that through a day job, right?

And so the fact that I was able to get back to my job, like, literally a few days after the main event was just so helpful for me, right? Mm. ‘Cause now, like, even now, it’s like I look back at the main event, it feels like, it feels ages ago, right? Because, like, I have, I have more things to worry about now, right?

I’m just back in my day-to-day. So yeah, those are the reasons why I, I chose to keep that job. And I, and I really enjoy it, by the way. It’s, it’s a really good job. It’s fun. I, I enjoy every moment of it.

Zachary Elwood: That’s great. Yeah, no, I think, I think it can be a trap to, like, fall into those, you know, for any, for people that achieve some success, there can be kind of a trap sometimes of, like, a temptation to- Go into areas that might not be the best long-term, and kinda like feed your ego in various ways.

But I do think, yeah- For sure … I think however you do it, it’s however people do it, it’s good to try to re- keep an even keel and think things through and think about, like, living in a, you know, having, having, uh, solid relationships with people and, and, um, yeah, trying not to feed the ego too much however, however you can avoid it.

‘Cause I, I, I’ve kinda- 100% … I’ve experienced some of that too where, you know, on a, on a lesser degree I think, where, like, I’d have some success, like with my Poker Tells books and videos, and people are like, “Oh, you should do X, Y, and Z. You should really lean into it and do all these things.” I’m like- Yeah … “No, I, I kinda-” Everyone has

Rami Hammoud: an opinion.

Zachary Elwood: I prefer, like, A, that might be really risky. B, I- Yeah … kind of like a more down-to-earth kind of a lifestyle in a lot of ways. So yeah, just to say, I think- Right … different, different experiences of course, but um-

Rami Hammoud: Yeah …

Zachary Elwood: can relate definitely in a way And that’s,

Rami Hammoud: and that’s at the end of the day, like … Yeah, and at the end of the day, like I, I made 1.7 million, right?

I don’t think it’s enough to retire on. Um, like if, if I was Jumalon or Siscolachi- Yeah. That’s a different story …

Zachary Elwood: we could have

Rami Hammoud: a different discussion. Yeah. It’s a different story, right? Then there’s more conversations to be had about, like, potentially retiring. But, you know, regardless, also given that year, um, just because, you know, based on what I said, um, you know, ’cause I gave them my word, and I want to normalize my life back, uh, back, I wanna bring my life back to normal as quickly as possible.

Zachary Elwood: And there would be people in your position too that, you know, even with the, the amount of money you won, there would be some people that’d be like, “Hell yeah, I’m going to do X, Y, Z. I’m gonna, you know, travel the world, start playing tournaments full-time,” or whatever it is, you know, the, these kinds of things.

So, you know, the, there is always that kind of temptation, um, when you achieve something like that, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: So I wanna touch on that because that’s a really interesting point, and I’ve had some helpful lessons throughout my years, which at the time I didn’t think they were helpful lessons. Okay? So remember when I told you, like, I got my first taste of, of my, uh, my first win at, at, at poker?

So it was a… The f- the, the prize that I won was $56,000, okay? Which to me at the time, at the age that I was, I don’t know, 24, 25, 26, like- Oh, yeah … oh my God, so much money.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: I end up spending $10,000 of that money throwing, like, a huge party for my friends, okay? So that’s stupid mistake number one. Stupid mistake number two, when you win a tournament, you get this high and level of confidence that now all of a sudden you are the best of the best, okay?

And so I start playing stakes that are way above my… way above what I should be playing and way above my skill level, and, uh, I got humbled real quickly, man. Real quickly. Yeah, you had the Jamie Gold

Zachary Elwood: experience.

Rami Hammoud: Right? And that was a ter- Yeah, exact- except for a s- a much smaller scale.

Zachary Elwood: A quick note here with regards to me mentioning Jamie Gold here.

I’m referencing a perception that after winning the main event, he jumped into high-stakes games in which he was highly outmatched and really had no business being in and lost a lot of money. So I wanna caveat my mention of Jamie here with the fact that I really know very little about Jamie’s overall poker journey or his total wins or losses.

For all I know, Jamie did quite well in un-televised games. My and others’ perceptions of him came from the televised games. Also, I wanna say that part of me actually respects Jamie for his willingness in going to test himself in those games. That’s honestly something I wouldn’t be able to do for better or worse.

So I wanted to caveat my kind of dismissive mention of Jamie Gold here with that nuance. I’ll also add that in my Poker Tells video series, I have a video dedicated to studying the verbal patterns of Jamie Gold in the 2006 World Series of Poker Main Event, where he won $12 million, because I think there were some highly meaningful patterns in his verbal approaches, and they’re patterns that map over to most verbal statements in poker in general.

Okay, back to the talk.

Rami Hammoud: So that was such a helpful lesson, a cheap lesson when you think about it, ’cause if this, if this was my first big tournament-

Zachary Elwood: Oh, yeah …

Rami Hammoud: maybe you’d see me, maybe you’d see me chatting right now, you know? Like, hey, I- how hard is this, right?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, no, totally. So, um- It’s good to get that early.

I mean, I, I had a, I had a similar- 100% … you know, albeit a much smaller experience when, when I… back when I was playing for a living, ’cause I, I, I had… back when, uh, I didn’t really understand the, how the variance worked, and I would, like, act like I had really made it really big to some friends, and I still look back and it still makes me cringe ’cause I w- the way I was talking back then before, like, var-

some variance had set in. I was like- Mm … “Oh, look, you know, look at how much I’m making a month,” you know? And then then- … then, like, had some worse results and… But it, it still makes me cringe looking back about, like, how out of touch I was and, like, how egotistical- It’s amazing … I was, and that kind of thing, you know?

But anyway.

Rami Hammoud: That’s awesome.

Zachary Elwood: Uh, one quick question too before we get to the more- Yeah … poker tell stuff. I was curious- Mm-hmm … about the state of the poker industry, kind of about when you made the final table, how many s- uh, products and companies were reaching out to you for sponsorships? Is that still a big thing?

Rami Hammoud: So during the three weeks off in between day eight and the final table, I did get, uh, in touch with a few sponsors, and I did have some pretty, uh, generous offers. However, um, during the negotiations, I realized that I kind of wanted to go naked from sponsors. Okay? And I have this text message that I sent to one of the sponsors that I wanna read to you, okay?

And this, this shows you s- the level of mindset that I was working at at the time, okay? So I said, “But honestly, after thinking long about it, I think I’d much rather just go as me, naked from any sponsors. I just want to be able to, to be myself and express myself however, however I want without any expectations.

Eventually, I’m going to look back at this experience, and I want to look back at it knowing I was authentic to myself. A few dollars here and there won’t change much, but the experience will change everything.” Mm. Right? So, so that was sort of the mindset I was operating at. However, it was all for nothing because three days prior to the start of the main event, uh, final table, they sent us an email and saying, “Hey, guys, like, if you weren’t part of that sponsor since day one of the tournament, like, you’re not, you’re not allowed to bring them,” right?

So, you know, I was happy I’d reached that decision on my own, but- Oh … it would’ve been really awkward if I signed with someone and they send me, like, a bunch of merch, and I’m like, “Oh, what do I do with all this?” You know? ‘Cause I have to send it back.

Zachary Elwood: Oh. Um, so. Oh, weird. Okay. Yeah, I didn’t know that. Huh. So I was curious about, uh, you know, if we cut to the final table ex- experience, like, uh, during the final table, it seemed to me that you were pretty card dead and the situations mostly played themselves and you didn’t have much room to, uh, you know, get creative or do anything that unusual, but would you agree with that, how that played out, or my, my view of how that played out?

Rami Hammoud: So I have a lot to say on that, too. So let me just gather my thoughts here.

Zachary Elwood: Sure.

Rami Hammoud: Okay. Number one, yes, I agree with you. I was card dead, and my seat distribution was definitely the worst, okay? I was second in chips with, like, 80 million, I think, going into, into the final table, and Jumalon had, like, 2.5x that, which is over 200K, and he was to my di- to my direct left, okay?

So I had a really bad seat distribution, and the card distribution… By the way, my card distribution since day eight weren’t that great, okay? Like, I never had aces, kings, queens. I never had premium hands. I was really, like, I was accumulating chips on day eight on pure aggression, okay?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: However, something that I didn’t f- prepare for is exactly that.

The fact that I was so aggressive, I didn’t consider that, and this will sound silly now, but I didn’t consider that my opponents would sort of prepare for that level of aggression. ‘Cause I looked back at the stream in preparation for this podcast as well, and even now I was really blown away by I really was not letting up any spots.

I was taking every single spot that I could. It was crazy. So looking back at it, knowing that how aggressive I was and that players obviously picked up on that and they were going to adjust for that, I probably should… There are some certain spots I probably should not, should not have taken. Like for example, there was a hand where I king seven suited against Mario Boose and I three bet him on the button.

I should probably just fold that pre-flop based on what I told you, right? Mm-hmm. If this was day eight where people didn’t know anything about me, take it, right? Mm. Another spot against, uh, uh, Han Fang where I three bet him with ace deuce off on a small blind, and he was- he had king jack suited on the, on the, on the button, and he four bet shoved against me.

Zachary Elwood: Mm.

Rami Hammoud: Like ju- just fold it based on what I said, just, just wait for premiums, right?

Zachary Elwood: Mm. Mm.

Rami Hammoud: And it’s funny because, uh, Han actually did an interview with, um, with GTO Wizard and Joey Ingram, and they discussed some hands, specifically the one ace deuce offsuit, and he said exactly that, right? He’s like, “You know, we did our, we did our homework, and we saw Rami was overaggressive, so you know, we’re gonna fight that, uh, with more aggression,” and rightfully so.

Mm. Right?

Zachary Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Rami Hammoud: So definitely I was card dead, but I think I forced the issue.

Zachary Elwood: Mm.

Rami Hammoud: Right? I think I forced the hands when I s- when I was supposed to have, so when I shouldn’t have, and so that’s, that’s, that’s a bit of regret, uh, a bit of a sting that, that I carry with me, but, but listen, it’s okay, right? But you- It happens.

Zachary Elwood: But I will say, you know, is it possible you’re being too hard on yourself? ‘Cause it’s like if it played out differently and they folded, you’d be like… Because arguably- For sure … people are playing much tighter in the, in those situations, you know, in that s- those spots- For sure … you know, trying to level up.

So it’s like- For sure … I could s- I could see it- Yeah … definitely going a different way and, you know, it’s a- it’s always unpredictable what people will do in those spots, so in a different, in a, in a different world- Your- … you might be like, “Oh, I had the right level of aggression.” Yeah. But yeah. But I see, but I see your point though, it’s, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Um- You’re 100% right. Um, I’m definitely being harsh on myself, which I tend to be. Um, and I’m probably being result oriented. Would we had, would we be having this conversation if they didn’t have like a, a four bet shoving hand? Probably not. But regardless, you know, I, I think the best way to improve is by assuming that you’ve done things wrong, and then, you know, taking accountability and improving that later on.

But, you know, I have poker friends, uh, uh, in my circle that are significantly better than me, and I’ve went over, you know, the final table multiple times and, and they told me that, you know, I played fine, right? Mm. Or I played with what I could have played, so yeah.

Zachary Elwood: I was curious what you thought of the interesting hand, near final hand, where after you had already, uh- Mm-hmm

departed where it was the- Yeah … it was heads up between Jim Malone and, and, um, how do you say his name? Sas, uh-

Rami Hammoud: Sascalati. Sascalati …

Zachary Elwood: Sascalati. Uh- Yeah … the hand where, uh, he, uh, Sas said something And then, uh, he was thinking on the river, and then Jumalon said, uh, “Put it in,” in kind of like a- Yeah … kind of a go- a goading, you know, daring way.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah.

Zachary Elwood: And, uh- Yeah … and Sos said, “Oh, I’m not gonna put it in, and then I’m not gonna shove. If I do anything- … I’m gonna call.” And, um, I mean, it stood out to me that that’s a very unlikely behavior from someone. You don’t see that kind of goading behavior from a bluffer, basically. It w- I thought it was a quite un- Oh

quite unlikely behavior to show up from a bluffer. And, um, I mean, I could see, see the cards, but, uh, I- that’s just a general view of mine. And, and, uh, Jumalon did have the nut flush, and Sos- Yep … ended up calling- That’s right … which many people were saying was like one of the worst- That’s right … calls they’ve seen- That’s right

in the whole World Series of Poker- That’s right … main event final table history. But I’m, I’m curious what- if you had any thoughts- Yeah … on that specific hand or how, or how the table played out after you left in general?

Rami Hammoud: Yeah, so I, I will comment on that hand. I think it’s an important exercise for everyone involved, especially those that are saying, like, worst call of all time.

I think it’s important to just take a step back and understand that it’s really hard to judge hands in isolation like that. Okay? People have to understand we’ve been playing for 10 days now in total. Okay? They have history, especially Jumalon and Sascolabi, they play together a lot. Okay? And from my understanding, this is only my opinion, it’s not confirmed, but what I gathered is that Sascolabi would rather make a bad call than get bluffed by Jumalon.

Like, that was the state of mind that he was operating in. So I think he was okay with taking the risk of making, like, a call that would look really foolish, as long as, you know, the reality in which he is right, he doesn’t have to deal with that by folding, right? So look, I agree with you. I, I don’t think Jumalon was bluffing- would’ve been bluffing in that sense.

I think he even agrees to that, right? I think he mentioned that publicly as well. I think

Zachary Elwood: he, I think he liked my, he liked my Instagram post that mentioned that, so I think he may- Yeah … he might, he might’ve agreed.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. Yeah, I think so. I think he did. I think he did, ’cause I think he pu- put out a post as well on Instagram saying that, you know, he would not have bluffed the river if the three didn’t come out, for example, right?

Um, but look, he knew his customer. However, and Sascolabi, for Sascolabi’s def- and Sascolabi’s defense, look, he got there by playing the way that he was playing. Okay? He was, in my opinion, and maybe you can agree to this, by far the most entertaining poker player on the final table. Dude, he had some crazy bluffs and, like, even on day eight, he was just wild.

So man, you gotta live by the sword and die by the sword, and I have nothing but respect for Sascolabi for not changing up his game, right? Just, just going with the sword, man, and, and good for him.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, and the thing I said on the, the Instagram, the social media post when I mentioned that hand, it- I was pointing out, like, even if Jumalon was unbalanced there, which I think he was with the behavior of, like, I don’t, I don’t think we’d often see him goading

I mean, I think we’d very rarely see him goading if he was bluffing there, like with that kind of- Yeah … statement of, uh, put it in. But the thing I pointed out, the nuance I think is, like, there’s still a reason he might do that if he thinks it might n- you know, if he has reason to believe that might actually make Sascolabi put it in, and like- Of course

sure enough, he did, so maybe he had, he had good reason to say that, right? So even though, you know, so it’s, it’s worth mentioning the nuance. Like you said, it’s really hard to judge things in a vacuum, ’cause when I’ve talked about, like, imbalances I’ve seen in, like, well-known players in terms of behavior, sometimes that, some of that stuff could be me- you know, they’re doing that on purpose and they have a reason to do it.

So even, even if it is, like, a common tell and a pattern you see, it’s like they sometimes have reasons for doing that that they could defend, right? So I just wanna, yeah, throw that nuance in there.

Rami Hammoud: 100%. He definitely had his reasons. Jumalon’s a dog, man. The guy’s a, he’s a fucking dog. Okay? And, and everything that he done is calculated, and man, like, the deserved champion won that final table, right?

Like, I’m, I’m so proud of him, man. He, he really killed it. I, I truly believe that performance- was the best performance by a file tape list, at least from the ones I’ve watched since 2016 I remember Ensan had a really, really good performance, but I truly believe Jumong’s performance, man, like that was top-notch.

He had some- he was well-prepared for every situation. Of course, it helps having the chip lead like the way that he did, but man, he barely made any mistakes. Uh, so kudos to him, man. No, it was- He, he played like a dog.

Zachary Elwood: I thought it was an impressive showing, yeah, ’cause I was like the, the, the clear strategy is to apply that pressure, but I kinda wondered if at some point if, like, maybe he was applying too much pressure at certain points, but it was like…

I- not that I had an, a common opinion, but it was just something I wondered, and I kinda wondered- Yeah … if even he was thinking like, “Am I playing it all a little bit too strong?” But, like, it, it, it definitely paid off and, um- It did. It did … yeah, they, they, he clearly were- he, he was- they were putting a lot of preparation into that, that strategy clearly.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh-

Rami Hammoud: What a hand. What a hand.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah. Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: It’s a crazy hand.

Zachary Elwood: So let’s, let’s talk about poker tells in general. I’m curious how-

Rami Hammoud: Sure …

Zachary Elwood: your views of poker tells have changed over time, if, if they have, and how, how- Yeah … have you, uh, approached learning about them or how, how, how is, how is that, uh, evolution of using them and thinking about them played out for you?

I know it’s a big question.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah, yeah, no, it’s, it’s a good question. Uh, and I think in order for me to answer that, let me explain how I actually got exposed to your work. Okay, I think this would be really relevant, right? So it was in 2024 and I had just blundered a huge spot in a WSOP tournament, okay? It was 12 players left, uh, I was third in chips, and the field was really soft.

600,000 up top. And, uh, yeah, I fucked it up, man. It was a huge mistake, I think nerves were in play. I had never final tabled any WSOP event at the time. It was my dream, right? My friends were showing up, were throwing a watch party. I was, I was nervous and, you know, I wasn’t thinking straight. In that hand that I lost, I remember sensing that my opponent was really comfortable in his ways, uh, in playing, and I didn’t- I wasn’t able to put my finger on it because I didn’t have sort of the knowledge, right, uh, on live tells.

So right after I lost, I actually end up googling, okay, like, best resources on live tell, and your name and specifically, uh, Reading Poker Tells came up a lot. So I ended up buying it, consumed it in, like, three days, and I’m not exaggerating when I tell you this, I bought the book on June 21st. On June 28th, I had my first final table in the WSOP.

Um, it was a Salute to Warriors event, and I don’t know if I told you this in the past, in private, but I truly credit you and your work for that run that I had. Mm. Because, like, it really opened the door for a lot of things that, like, you kinda sense, you feel, and that’s the thing about your book that’s so good.

It’s that 95% of the content was something I was able to relate to as a player myself ’cause I have 20 years of experience. So I’m like, “Man, I know exactly what he’s talking about. Man, I do that,” you know? So fir- my first step was, okay, remove all these leaks, and the second step was, like, okay- Let’s explore all these different theories that you laid on, uh, in the book, right?

Zachary Elwood: Mm. Mm-hmm.

Rami Hammoud: And so yeah, that … When I, when I started going into that, then I think I ended up buying your, um, your course as well- Her book … which was really good. Or no, the video,

Zachary Elwood: the video, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: The video as well, yeah, the video, which was great because you could see, like, live examples, which I really appreciated.

And then, yeah, just start putting more time. And, you know, prior to your book, I- I’d be one of those that’s always on my phone, you know, just waiting for my turn, not really paying attention. And then after your book, I just … It’s just so damn important to be attentive at all times, because there is an abundance of data and information that’s being leaked at all times, and I think that’s one of- that’s actually one of the biggest changes that, that brought to my game, is like just being attentive.

So that’s how, that’s how I got into this whole live, live world. You were… Obviously, it was your work that sort of brought me in.

Zachary Elwood: No, that’s awesome. Yeah, thanks for sharing that. And like we talked about, I know that there can be reasons to, like, not wanna talk about that stuff as a serious poker player.

Yeah. Like, I’ve, I’ve talked to plenty of people who are like, “I love your stuff, but I don’t wanna give you any public mentions or reviews of any of your stuff, ’cause I don’t wanna draw attention to it.” So, uh, I appreciate it, uh,

Rami Hammoud: for sure. And I’m, I’m like that too, by the way. Selfishly, I don’t really tell people about your work.

Yeah,

Zachary Elwood: well,

Rami Hammoud: you know, not many- It has its own value and pull back.

Zachary Elwood: If it makes you feel better, not many poker players, I think, listen to this podcast, so.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. Great. Amazing. Yeah. Don’t … Buy something else, guys. Buy another book. Buy a fiction book.

Zachary Elwood: Buy Joe Navarro’s book on poker tells. It’s a good one.

Rami Hammoud: There you go.

There you go. There you go.

Zachary Elwood: All right. Uh, I did wanna… Yeah, so I wanted to ask you- And

Rami Hammoud: my, my Kara’s book. I think my Kara’s still relevant today, right?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, it is. There you go. I, I do, like … Yeah. Kara’s book was great. No, no, no sar- Yeah … no sarcasm, uh, intended on that one.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah, yeah.

Zachary Elwood: So, uh, I did wanna ask you, yeah, do you wanna talk about any specific hands from the World Series of Poker experience where- Tells played a role or-

Rami Hammoud: For sure, for sure

Zachary Elwood: can you real- any hands that come to mind really, if you wanna talk about anything like that?

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. So I can give you two hands that worked in my favor and one hand that didn’t work in my favor, right? And then we can go into, like, the risks- The nuance … of live tells. I think that- Yeah … I think that’s really interesting as well, right?

The hand that was benefit to me was actually in that Solta Warriors tournament, right? So remember, I just read your book, so I’m, like, eager to, like, try everything and, like you know, obviously over- Splash around … but, you know. Yeah. Splash around, dude. Splash

around.

Zachary Elwood: Expe- well, it’s a g- it’s good to experiment ’cause, you know, it’s like- Of course

see where the, see where the limits are of, of stuff, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: 100%. Yeah. 100%. Um, so it’s day two of this tournament, and under-the-gun raises into the big blind, who at the time was the chip leader. Okay, so under-the-gun raises, the big blind was on chip leader, and the two had been quite chatty. And as other players are deciding their move and folding, the under-the-gun raiser tells the big blind in, like, a lower voice, he’s like, “Like, you know, if I’m raising into you, I must have something.”

And two things. Number one, prior to me reading your book, I would’ve probably agreed with him. Like, yeah, you must have something, you know? And just, like, nothing too much of it. Um, and second of all, I think this also goes to the importance of paying attention, right? Because I think in any other instance prior to, prior to your book, I probably wouldn’t have caught that.

But then I started thinking, I’m like, okay, you know, would he have- would he really be saying this if he had aces or kings, right? Generally, like you so say it in your, uh, w- like you say it in your book yourself, it’s like players wanna conceal when they find treasure, right? And you gave the, the, the scene from Blood Diamond, right, where we mentioned that, like, oh, okay, the, the, the guy found a diamond and then he looked away quickly, you know, because he didn’t want to, like, expose the fact that he just find- uh, he just found the treasure.

And it’s like it works similarly with poker players. So it seems like he was trying to increase the strength of his perceived range, right, by doing so. It’s like telling the big blind, like, hey, like I’m raising here, you know? Uh, like I would never raise into the big blind unless I had a hand, right? If he had aces or kings, I don’t think he would’ve said

Zachary Elwood: that, right?

And, and, and aces or kings people are just more stoic in general. They’re, like, more thoughtful and quiet. They like- they don’t like to draw attention to themselves. Yeah, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Exactly.

Zachary Elwood: Exactly. As a general, as a general rule, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: And so it folds around to me on the small blind and I’m like, you know what, man, I don’t even wanna look at my cards.

I’m gonna do this for science, okay? ‘Cause if I look at my cards and I see trash hand, I won’t do it, right? So I end up three-betting him, and big blind folds, and the other gun ended up tank folding. He didn’t show his cards. Um, I had 10-5 off-suit, but I think that was my first realization, like holy moly, if I can remove a player’s top of range, I really have carte blanche to do whatever the hell I want with regardless what cards I have, right?

Now, of course, I’ve went a bit too crazy on this and gotten burnt, so I just wanna put that out there to our listeners. Right. You know, be careful, play responsibly. Um, but it is helpful once you sort of, I guess, like, uh, find, find that balance, find that right balance, right?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah. No, and, and it’s interesting, um, uh, it’s interesting you picked out a, an early hand tell because I actually think, uh, a lot of people focus on the big bet tells of, like, bluffing or value-betting- Yeah

but I actually think there’s a lot more value in the early hand tells of, like, these small little clues that help you lean towards more aggressive, you know, raises- For sure … uh, pre-flop or, or on the flop call- you know, betting, deciding to continue to bet based on some small things because I actually think- Yeah

those are, those are actually spots Because people are less aware of their behavior. You know, when people are making the big bets, they’re much more cognizant and trying to be as stoic as possible and such. But there’s a lot of little clues, like the one you just mentioned, where, you know, even if we’re talking a numbers game, where, like, obviously that guy could have aces or kings sometimes, but poker is, is- Yeah

a numbers game, and, like, by and large- Yeah … if you know some of the- how these patterns play out, you’re gonna put yourself, time and time again, in these early hand positions- Absolutely … into better s- situations, and those, th- those are much more common than the big bet tell spots. So it’s, it’s cool that you picked an early hand kind of situation like that, ’cause I think those are super powerful, yeah, and under-examined.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. And look, to be honest, had, had he not said anything, I probably would’ve just folded my hand. I mean, I… No, not probably, I would definitely fold my hand. But just because of that, I was able to push… And, and on your, on your topic of, like, look, it’s all about, you even mentioned this in the book, it’s, it’s correlation, but it’s not 100% correlation right?

There are going to be times where a gentleman will say that and have ace and kings.

Zachary Elwood: Right.

Rami Hammoud: But more often than not, it’s probably not the case. Right. Right? I think it’s also important to understand that.

Zachary Elwood: You know, there, there’s so many little examples like that, especially with the, the verbal stuff, like people in general, uh, pre-flop or on the flop seeming less focused, like, just having more movements and, like, checking their cards more, like, playing with their chips in kind of an aggressive fashion or, like- Yeah

calling with a, a splashy gesture. It’s like a lot of these things- Mm-hmm. That’s it … just kind of weaken the range, because if they had a top of- more top of range thing, they’d be behaving in more stoic, thoughtful, mentally focused ways. So a lot of these things can just really-

Rami Hammoud: 100% …

Zachary Elwood: help you focus in and make-

Rami Hammoud: Yeah

Zachary Elwood: better decisions. And yeah, and like you said, it’s a, it’s a numbers game. ‘Cause often when I, you know, when I w- talking about any exploitative kind of, uh, probabilistic thing, you know, sometimes people will be like, “No, I do that all the time when I have the nuts.” It’s like, well, sure, you may- Yeah, yeah … but we’re talking about- Yeah

you know, we’re not, we’re not- Of course … we’re not claiming… You know, the claim isn’t that everybody does this every single time. But it’s really hard- Of course … to talk about probabilistic things, though, which is, you know, uh, which we, we can get into the, the downsides and the risks of using these things, because I think- For

Rami Hammoud: sure.

Zachary Elwood: I mean, I, uh, I’ll, I’ll just throw something out there. I think one, one thing that makes people really not wanna use tells is the probabilistic aspect of them. Like, you will-

Rami Hammoud: Mm-hmm …

Zachary Elwood: often be, you know, fairly often be wrong with the reads. Um, and, and, you know, when you use them, that- that’s part of the art is, like, knowing, like, well, in certain spots I’m not gonna act on this unless I’m quite sure based on X, Y, Z factors, whereas other spots- Yeah

might be more variable. You might be okay with more risk, and that’s a whole art based on experience in itself. But the, the one thing I think is true is I think a lot of people- Are really afraid of looking stupid by using this softer set of skills. And I think that applies to a lot of really experienced players too, because it is a softer, more ambiguous set of information, you know, basis of information.

Yeah. And it feels much more uncomfortable to base decisions on something that seems so squishy and amorphous. But I think it’s funny too, because experienced poker players are always ba- are, are commonly basing decisions on these probabilistic things in the exploitative, uh- Exactly … fundamental strategy realm.

It’s like, if you know somebody’s- Exactly. That’s how I was thinking. That’s right … if you know somebody’s raising a lot pre-flop, you’re gonna adjust to that with your play, and you’ll o- and you’ll sometimes be wrong there too, so it’s the same idea. Exactly. 100%. But to do it with poker, uh, beha- to do it with behavior- Yeah

does seem, and I, I acknowledge, it does seem much more sketchy, because it’s, like, a much more ambiguous and hard-to-define area. It’s like getting a handle on what those factors are is much more squishy, and you’re more liable to beat yourself up because it is a more squishy area. You’re like, “Why did I base a decision on that squishy information,” right?

It, uh, so just, just to say, it can seem a much more, uh, anxiety-producing thing to base decisions on, even for people that are used to adjusting their strategy based on probabilistic things anyway. So I, that, I think that’s kind of an interesting thing. I’m curious if you have thoughts on that.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah, I totally agree.

Um, and it’s funny because this idea of looking stupid can also apply if you’re playing, like, 100% detailed strategy. Like, let’s say the solver tells you, like, “Hey, you need to 3X over bet pot on the river with fucking air,” right? And the guy snap calls you with quads, right? You’re like, “Okay, that was dumb.”

Right? So you might feel stupid, right?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: I think at the end of the day, man, it all needs to fall under the same bracket in that you have to be okay looking stupid. You have to embrace looking stupid, right? Because avoiding plays that you believe are the right plays because you don’t wanna look foolish is an easy way to lose money, right?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: I mean, I think Adrian Mateos said it best. I, I have a quote from him because I, I love, I, I love him a lot and I love the way he thinks, and he said exactly what I just said. You have to embrace making mistakes. Don’t be afraid of making mistakes, because that will lead to bigger mistakes. If you try to avoid mistakes, you’ll play worse.

So this applies in the GTO example and also applies in the live tells. Look, if you have reason to believe that the tell that you have is going to dictate a certain action of yours, then do it, right? Right. Like, you can rationalize it to anyone else after. You can rationalize it to yourself as well. But you have to be comfortable with the idea that you’re gonna be wrong.

You ca- It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s an imperfect game, right? It’s all, like you said, it’s probabilistic, right? Yeah, it’s all probabilistic. You’re gonna win X amount of time. Yeah,

Zachary Elwood: exactly. It’s incomplete information. Exactly. It’s hidden information. You’re gonna be wrong. Yeah, that is- Totally … it is an interesting thing about how uncomfortable people are with that whole idea.

And I think, you know, Doug Polk, for example, he used to say something like… He said exactly that. He said something like, “I don’t wanna base a decision on some tell and then look, you know, feel like- Yeah … and then lose to some garbage player based on…” But I think he’s come around over the years because- Yeah

I do see him more often talking about behavior, and I think that maybe that’s based on him playing more- Interesting … at the lodge and, and, and playing more on the streams- Right … and such. Just a quick note that one of the most popular online articles that I’ve written about poker tells is one that I wrote for Doug Polk’s Upswing Poker Training website.

If you’re curious, you can find that by searching for Seven Poker Tells You Should Look For. I also wrote an article for Upswing mentioning Doug Polk’s criticism of using tells. That article is titled Does Studying Poker Tells Make You a Worse Overall Player? And it was pretty cool that Doug was up for publishing an article that was critical of what Doug said on that topic.

And again, I do think that Doug’s thinking has evolved on that

Rami Hammoud: topic over the years. Okay, back to the talk.

Zachary Elwood: I, I do think- All right … I, I do understand that impulse because it does seem, especially if you’re used to, like, studying, uh, you know, the, the, the GTO kind of approaches and- Right … you know, especially if you’re, like, referencing solvers, which, you know, have a, have a, uh, discrete, you know, concrete output.

It’s like-

Rami Hammoud: Yep …

Zachary Elwood: yeah, trying to delve into the soft, squishy area of behavior can seem very, a p- a, a, a very rough, uh, and scary source of information. But I do think, you know, to, to your point about it, you feeling like it set you on a course or one of, w- was one of the factors for, for setting you up for, uh, more success- Mm-hmm

it does seem to me, based on the conversations that I ha- I’ve had with high-stakes players too, including one I’m still consulting for now over the past year, it does seem to me- Wow … like, for people that delve into that and really take it seriously, it does seem to be, like, a big differentiating factor to me from, from what I know.

Rami Hammoud: Huge, huge. At least, at least for my game. But, you know, again, there, there are risks, right? Um, at least for me, the risks are is that it gives me an extra reason to rationalize a bad call, okay?I, um, like most poker players, but especially me, I hate folding. I like to call. So sometimes I might find myself thinking, “He blinked three times in four seconds, I’m calling him.”

Right? When in reality, like, it’s all tell, but I use that tell to rationalize, uh, my really shitty call, right? Uh, so that’s number one. Number two, you also get exposed to fake tells. This happened to me in a WSOP event in 2025. We were on the river, I have two pairs, um, and I was- uh, my, my opponent was all in, and there was a straight possible on the board.

And I was, like, 50/50. And then, you know, as you always advise, like, take your time, you know, make sure you get all the information. And so I was looking at him, and I noticed that he was taking, like, big gulps. Now, looking back at it, they were definitely exaggerated, high freaking gulps that nobody takes.

But at the time, it’s the first time I see this, and I’m like, “Oh my God, like, he’s gulping. Okay, he must be really, really nervous.” You know, paying attention, the gulps were more frequent. I’m like, damn, I was so close to folding, but that really switched it to me calling. And of course he had the nuts, and I went to see him after, I’m like, “Dude, like, you were gulping so much.”

He’s like, “Finally. I finally got someone with this.” He said, “I’ve been doing this for, like, many years,” and he’s like, “I knew someday it would come- that someone would fall for it, and it would be worth it.” So good for him. If you’re listening to this, I’m proud of you. Um, so yeah. Uh-

Zachary Elwood: No, that’s- that- that’s an interesting one too, ’cause that gets into the subject of, like…

I w- I was actually just writing something on my site about this, of the nuance of, like, what people call false/reverse tells, because to me, I would, I would classify that as, like, the tell, because it’s like- … the more common thing to see the gulping- Yeah … from the- Sure. … the, the strong-hand players. But y- you know, but he, in his mind, or, or it will sometimes to some people, d- depending on their perspective, be a false tell- Yeah

because he is exhibiting- Yeah … the sign of anxiety, right? So there, there’s a lot of nu- Exactly. It’s hard, it’s hard to even talk about tell- … you know, tells in poker behavior because it’s so subjective depending on your perspective. But yeah, to the risks, though, I will say, I mean, I- Yeah … this stuff is not easy.

Like, I, I… You know, I like to emphasize, you might, you know, in a typical eight-hour session, I, I might only ba- change a decision a couple times, you know, in a, in a, in an average session. You might change it more. I won’t ask you that. Yeah. But I… It, it is quite difficult, like with this work I’ve been doing with this high-stakes player who plays in We watch a lot of footage and it’s, these are serious players we’re, we’re studying and it’s like, it’s not often we, uh, see too much.

It’s like a lot- Yeah … because these are, these are serious players trying their best to be balanced and stoic. For sure. So the, the better the player is, the harder that kind of stuff is gonna be. So I think it is worth pointing out that like, A, it’s hard to do, especially-

Rami Hammoud: Yeah …

Zachary Elwood: the, the, the more serious the player.

B, the stuff, you know, not surprisingly will be most often used against more recreational players who are not as aware of their behavioral leaks. Of course. And then C, the risk- Of course … of like, yeah, you, you might, uh, es- especially in the short term, might make a lot of mistakes in how you apply these things, ’cause I do think there’s an art of figuring out like where to apply them and when to just, you know, not think about that stuff at all or say, “I don’t have enough information.”

Uh, so yeah, the, the caveats are important, um-

Rami Hammoud: At least for me, like my… I, I feel like, you know, ’cause I don’t play that high of buy-ins, right? Generally it’s like between the 500 to the 5,000, and the 10,000 usually is like just the main event. So in that bracket of buy-ins, you tend to see players that are not that- Well thought out when it comes to life tells and, and balancing those life tells.

So- Mm … you know, I think there’s a lot of value for me. But I imagine there’s still a lot of value for, for the high stakes players as well, like, like your, your client that you’re working for. Um, I’m sure you’re still finding something, although it’s not gonna be as easy, of course.

Zachary Elwood: Right. Yeah. I, I was trying to do my part to, like, dissuade people from studying poker tells.

I was trying to balance out- … the, um, you know, for

Rami Hammoud: You know it. There you go. There you go.

Zachary Elwood: Um, yeah. That’s amazing. It, it, they suck. Don’t- Don’t … But, yeah, just don’t look into it. It’s not worth it. Um. No.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah, forget about it. Yeah. Waste of time. Yeah.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, I’m gonna use that clip. Um- That, that’s how I’ll start the episode.

It’ll be

Rami Hammoud: Amazing.

Zachary Elwood: That’s awesome. Just, just to, just to get people to stop watching at the beginning.

Rami Hammoud: There you go.

Zachary Elwood: All right.

Rami Hammoud: That’s so good. Um-

Zachary Elwood: Just doing the poker community a favor, basically. Um-

Rami Hammoud: Absolutely.

Zachary Elwood: So- And

Rami Hammoud: doing me a favor too.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, exactly. I’m trying to, I’m trying to think about- Of course … your feelings in this too.

I-

Rami Hammoud: Oh, I appreciate you, man. I appreciate you.

Zachary Elwood: All right. So, um … Oh, so one other interesting thing there is- Yeah … it stood out to me when I was watching your, your footage le- uh, especially the footage leading up to the final table.

Rami Hammoud: Mm-hmm.

Zachary Elwood: Uh, one thing I do think is a nice thing about, another side nice thing about studying tells and acting on behaviors is that it makes your decisions really hard to understand for people that don’t know the factors for what you’re basing your decisions on.

Um- Yeah … and I saw some of those things that I think were true in some of your pre-final table. I could be wrong, but I thought it was possible that you were basing some of your, like, you know, pre-flop three bets or some of your follow-throughs, uh, after the flop- … uh, bluffing. I thought it was possible you’re basing some of your decisions on some of these small behaviors that we, that we referenced.

And, and I’ll say too, when I’ve, when I’ve played with, uh … I mean, I, I’ve rarely talked strategy with people I’ve played frequently, frequently with, but one time I remember-

Rami Hammoud: Yeah …

Zachary Elwood: uh, playing a 5/10 game regularly in Portland, and I had, like, three or four bet somebody pre-flop and I, and I had, uh, showed a serious poker-playing friend the hand, and he was like, “Why would you, you know why would you do that?”

Rami Hammoud: Right.

Zachary Elwood: And, uh, but it- Yeah … it, it cemented to me, like, that’s a, that’s a major, um … Yeah, and it, and to be clear, I was basing that decision on a, on these small pre-flop kinda indicators of weakness and non-alertness- Yeah, yeah. Figured … and stuff. Non-focus. Um- Yeah … but it does seem to me like a, a benefit is, like, people would be like, “This guy is a maniac.

Like, I don’t know what he’s, what he’s doing at all.” You know? And that’s a, that’s kind of an added- Yeah … side effect because I think people assume that you’re crazier than you are. If it … But I’m curious if you wanna talk about that.

Rami Hammoud: So I’d love to sit here … Well, I’d love to stand here right now and tell you that yes, I had, like, all these live leaks and live tells on so many players- It was a lot more based on the VAD stack.

It was actually, I was sensing such a huge amount of fear from everyone that was there. And look, it’s, it’s a big spot, but like I said at the beginning of the call, I I was … For me, it was like the end of the tournament, I didn’t care. I was ready. I was ready. I was ready. You’re ready to apply the pressure, yeah.

You know, I was gonna go home with $20,000. Yeah, yeah. So, like, for me, all the aggression that you saw wasn’t based on life tells, it was based on the fear that I was sensing from the players. Right. And even players that- Just their playing style

Zachary Elwood: overall, yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Right, and even players I never thought that I would, I would find fear in.

I’m not gonna name names, but, like, I was, I was surprised, like oh my God, like you know? This is interesting that I, I can sense it, too, right?

Zachary Elwood: Right.

Rami Hammoud: Um, so yeah, it wasn’t, it wasn’t life tell based. Um, it was, it was mostly like, uh, I’m just gonna take advantage of the situation. It seems like everyone really, really wants to make the final table and, you know, I’m

I was okay with not making it, right?

Zachary Elwood: Yeah. No, that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. And, and to be clear, I didn’t … I, I definitely was not confident in that read. It was more, like, a couple spots where I thought it could’ve been true, but I get your point. It’s like, yeah, you’re mostly- Yeah … uh, you’re basing on the, on the, on the general sense of, uh, how people are playing and the, and the fear.

But yeah, to, to your point though, I was- I won’t name names either, but I did get a sense, uh, it gets- I think it gets to that fact of, like, even if you’re a very strong player and you know what you should do, it can be very hard to implement that when there’s a lot of money on the line, there’s a lot of, like, incentives to sticking- Oh

around longer- Totally … in those tournament spots. It’s like, because I- I- I- Of course … I do, I do think it, it often happens where it’s like, hey, I, I know I should be probably, uh, applying more- being in more plots, applying more pressure, whatever it is, but, like, implementing that when the pressure’s on in a, in a once in a lifetime spot is a whole different, uh, situation, and then that can be, kind of make you freeze up and, and such, yeah.

Uh-

Rami Hammoud: For sure. It’s such a, it’s such a unique situation, man, and I don’t blame anyone for being scared, you know? I should, I should also been scared, to be honest with you , right? That, and by the way, like, my style of play, I’m sure some people would review it and be like, “Rami, I think you went a bit too aggressive,” right

And so- But that’s

Zachary Elwood: how you got there too, though.

Rami Hammoud: That’s how I got there, right? So live by the sword, die by the sword, right? Yeah. So maybe in this timeline it worked out for me, but maybe in other timelines, like, it wouldn’t have worked out for me, right? So- It’s hard to judge these things … you know, I don’t mean to be result-oriented either.

It’s- Yeah … it’s really hard. It’s really- It- … difficult. Um, but-

Zachary Elwood: Yeah,

Rami Hammoud: it’s really hard to judge- Yeah, it’s not like I look like a genius now, you know? It’s like, but

Zachary Elwood: yeah,

Rami Hammoud: I mean-

Zachary Elwood: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. The-

Rami Hammoud: It’s probabilistic, like you said, right?

Zachary Elwood: I mean, yeah, it, to your point, it, it is really hard to judge these things- Yeah

I mean, because if a g- if a serious player who’s got some skills is … You know, you can often find a lot of different factors for why people are doing the things they do, and a lot of those things- Yeah … can be defensible. There’s, like, a range of things that can be defensible depending on what they’re, you know, focused on or, you know.

So po- I mean, poker’s- For sure … a complex game, as we, as we know. Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: So complex and so beautiful.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah, absolutely.

Zachary Elwood: No,

Rami Hammoud: that’s- Absolutely. Yeah.

Zachary Elwood: I mean, like, yeah, like you, I was into poker at a young age. Like, um, I used to play at my friend’s house. His parents would have poker games, and that’s how I, I got into it.

And, uh, then I was setting up poker games in college and stuff and, uh- That’s funny … taking my friend’s, friend’s money and, uh, taking notes on, like- Nice. … behavior or, or betting patterns that they had, you know? That’s

Rami Hammoud: so funny.

Zachary Elwood: Um- Is

Rami Hammoud: that what you studied in, by the way? Did you study in, like, some, some sort of behavioral science or…?

Zachary Elwood: No, no, that’s all just amateur. I went to school for, uh- Oh, interesting … journalism and then, uh, video and film- Gotcha … and I switched schools. But yeah, no, it’s- Oh, interesting … the, the, the psychology stuff was … But I was always interested early on in the, in the details aspect ’cause I read, you know- Got it

Mike Caro’s stuff and then I was searching.

Rami Hammoud: Right.

Zachary Elwood: I read some other really, like, niche books that were not very good, but about behavior and, uh, got really interested in that part of it. Uh, but yeah- Right … to, I was g- the reason I mention it is, like, when you talked about the, the beauty of poker, it, it is- The complexity of it and the fact that it involves the math, the game theory, the, the psychology, uh, the behavior stuff, it, it, it does make it a beautiful game- Mm-hmm

in, in my view. Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: So beautiful. Yeah. So beautiful, man. I love it so much.

Zachary Elwood: Um, I- okay, do, do we, do you wanna talk about anything else we haven’t touched on? Do you wanna talk about anything-

Rami Hammoud: Yeah,

Zachary Elwood: I- … you wanna promote, anything like that?

Rami Hammoud: I’m gonna, I’m gonna sit back down. I still have a lot of things to talk about, man, if you want to.

I don’t know how much time you have, but it’s really up to you. If you don’t have time, then I’m happy to end it as well.

Zachary Elwood: Oh, no, no, if you wanna keep going, I’m, I’m fine. I got nowhere to be, so it’s really up to you.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. Um, yeah. Um, I’d like to go over, since, you know, this is a lifestyle thing, I’d like to cover a bit more, uh, lifestyle hands.

Um, so I think we mentioned that there’s gonna be two that were beneficial for me. I explained, I already gave one away, so I can give another one. There was a hand in day eight of the WSOP Main Event where I had jack-deuce off-suit on the button, and it was the last hand before the break. And I think most poker players know that usually on the last hand before the break, players tend to be a bit tighter because they’re just anxious to go, uh, to go on their break.

On top of that, I had Greg Muler who was on the small blind, who was, was a bit on the tighter side, and I had Dan Savvas, okay, who was on the big blind, okay And Dan Savvas, I’ve played a lot with him, so I had, like, a lot of good timing and betting tells, uh, on him, okay? So I end up raising trying to steal the blind.

Uh, Muler folds and Savvas calls on the big blind. I have jack-deuce off, flop is seven-six-deuce, so I flop bottom pair, not a great hand. He checks, which is important because he generally likes to donk when he makes re- when he makes strong hands, okay? I end up C betting because I wanna protect my hand, and he calls, which is also really relevant because he generally will quickly min-check raise if he, if he, if he gets any hand here, okay?

The turn’s a seven, right? So seven-seven, six-deuce. I have jack-deuce. He checks. Again, very relevant because I would expect him to donk, okay? So I end up betting. And after tanking for like a few seconds, he ends up min-raising me, okay? So check min-raise. Um, and again, for the reasons I mentioned pre- pr- prior to this, I’m like, you know what?

I am still pretty sure that I’ve, that I have the best hand here. If he had a really good hand, he would’ve dunked on the flop, he would check-raise me on the flop, and he would dunk the turn. So because of all this, I’m fairly… I’m very confident in my hand, by the way. Like, I am, I’m hoping he goes bananas on the river.

That’s how confident I was. Yeah,

Zachary Elwood: pretty, a pretty quick min-raise. Yeah, okay. Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. So I call, and river was a king, and after a few seconds he goes all in. Now, I was going to call, okay? I don’t think the king changed him or anything, unless he had like king high or unless I was wrong on my read, of course, right?

You always have to open the possibility that you’re wrong on your read. But of course, I’m not gonna snap call with, with bottom pair here, so I’m, I’m gonna take my time. And as I’m taking my time, I look at him, and he looks at me, and he gives me this big genuine smile. He puts on his hoodie, he squeezes it, and then he leans back on…

he leans back on his chair.

Zachary Elwood: Oh, jeez.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. And I look at this, I’m like, okay. I think I need to sort of rework the hand and, you know, acknowledge I could be wrong here, right? Because this man is very comfortable. Remember, there’s like 17 players left,

Zachary Elwood: right? Yeah, no, that’s-

Rami Hammoud: So- That would

Zachary Elwood: change it all. Yeah, right there

Rami Hammoud: Yeah.

So I ended up folding, and, uh, he had king queen. So I was really proud of that because, you know, I was right on the flop, I was right on the turn. It was, it was like almost a perfect hand all the way to the river, right? Wow, no. Um, so my wish- But that, that,

Zachary Elwood: that’s a good one. Yeah, that’s a good one

Rami Hammoud: I wish a 10 came out, man, because that would’ve been the call of the tournament.

Oh, I

Zachary Elwood: know, that you would’ve, you would’ve been the, the, the belle of the ball- Yeah … for that, for that one. Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: I know. That would’ve been

Zachary Elwood: great. It

Rami Hammoud: would’ve been so good. It would’ve been so good.

Zachary Elwood: Oh,

Rami Hammoud: man. But, uh, yeah, so that’s another example where, like, that really benefited me, because I, I think I may have called if I didn’t have that information.

Zachary Elwood: Yeah.

Rami Hammoud: Right? So- No,

Zachary Elwood: it sounds like you were perfectly set up to, to make that call.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah. Yeah. No, that’s- Oh, 100%. That, that would’ve

Zachary Elwood: been great. Yeah. Huh.

Rami Hammoud: 100%.

Zachary Elwood: A note here. I decided to edit out a story that Rami told about the main event final table involving a hand where he made a faulty read where he thought a pre-flop behavior from an opponent, Greg Mueller, was likely indicating a weak hand.

And so Rami decided three bet, but then Greg Mueller re-raised, and Rami re-thought the situation and decided it was quite unlikely that his opponent was re-raising with a weak hand in that spot, and decided to fold. I decided to remove this as I thought it might be a bit hard to follow for most listeners, because it involved some of Rami’s personal history with his opponent in that event, and also because Rami’s decisions in that hand actually went against my own take on the behavior and the situation he described.

And so all that nuance was a bit hard to capture, and to do it right and get across my views on it would require me adding a lot of explanatory notes and such to clear up any confusion, especially for a lay audience. So honestly, it was just too much work, uh, for not much payoff. But by and large, the most important point that Rami was making with that story was that using poker tells will always involve risk, and sometimes you’ll make some bad reads, and you need

Rami Hammoud: to be prepared for that.

Okay, back to the talk.

Zachary Elwood: Thanks for sharing those stories. I think, uh- Of course … that’s, that’s really cool to hear the i- inside scoop on some of those things. Um- Yeah, for sure … do you wanna, do you wanna share anything else or, uh, uh, whether hand related or, or anything you wanna share about anything you’re working on now?

Rami Hammoud: Of course, of course. I may have a, some plugs if I can put out there. I don’t know how that works. It’s my first time, but, like, I do wanna advertise some people that helped me on this journey and- Oh, yeah … you know, if they can, this can get them, like, an extra client or two- No, go ahead … I think this will be really beneficial.

So yeah, I want to give a shout-out, first of all, to my theoretical poker coach. Um, his name is Adam Mahdi Said. Uh, he’s been my coach for as long as I can remember. Um, so if you also want to make the final table of the WSOP Main Event, make sure that you visit his website, which is www.gitandsos.com. So it’s G-I-T-A-N-D-S-O-S.com.

It’s a complicated name, but it’s a play on sit and go, so you just reverse the S and the G, Git And Sos. Okay. Git And Sos. Okay, gotcha. So that’s the first person I’d like to shout out, shout out. The second person, and this is the part that we didn’t talk about as much, but it’s like… Maybe if you want, we can touch on it, but it’s the, the three weeks about how…

Let’s talk about it. I think it’s interesting. Remember how I said, like, everything up until day eight, I was, like, super disconnected, you know? It seems like I, I wasn’t, you know, I, I don’t really understand what I was playing for. That all came crashing down the moment day eight came to an end, right? I think I remember telling you that I was being pulled left and right for interviews.

People telling me like, “Oh, you’re a millionaire now.” Like, “How are you gonna prepare for the main?” I’m like, “Oh my God,” like, “I’m a millionaire. Holy shit.” And I remember being on the plane, and I was just receiving, like, a plethora of message, thousands and thousands of messages from people that I knew, people that I barely knew, people I haven’t spoken to in years.

And God bless their souls, like, none of them had malicious intent, but some of their messages was something along the lines of, “I know you’re gonna win. I have no doubt.” You know, things like that, which I understand why they would say that, but when you tell that to someone like me, it’s like, okay, so wait, so if I don’t win, like, you’re gonna be upset?

You’re gonna lose support, right? So all of a sudden, the environment around me was changing, right? I was still the same person, but the environment around me was changing, and it was constantly reminding me what I was playing for and how crazy this was. And so all of a sudden, I was sort of shouldering this huge weight-

Zachary Elwood: Mm

Rami Hammoud: the weight of the world on my shoulders. And I remember when I landed back in Montreal- I had this thought, and I’m like, “I don’t wanna play the final table anymore. I just don’t wanna play,” right? And so that was probably my lowest point, and when you get that thought, I think it’s time that you get help, right?

So I reached out to my, uh, who will become my poker mental coach. His name is Francois Hamel. Uh, so yeah, he guided me during the highs and the many lows during those three weeks, and really, I think the mantra became just embrace all experiences, right? Mm. So even the negative ones, don’t hide away from it.

Lean into it. Document it, because like it’s all gonna be over soon, and you’re gonna be wanna be able to sort of get back to that, right? And so for me, it’s like okay, it’s fine to be scared. There’s nothing wrong with that, but live it. Don’t ignore it. Don’t… Like, when I start getting these thoughts, don’t just go on my phone and start going on TikTok so I can like distract myself.

Like no, no, just embrace it, you know? Mm-hmm. Uh, think about it, process it. So yeah, he, he’s another person I’d love to shout out, uh, Francois Hamel. He was really, really good for me, and so yeah, if you’re a poker player that’s struggling with any kind of pressure or issues with confidence, definitely, definitely recommend him.

Zachary Elwood: That’s just a good life strategy too. I mean, a good life outlook in general is trying to embrace- 100% … that view of things. Yeah. A quick note here, the coach Rami mentioned here is named Francois Hamel. That’s H-A-M-E-L. His website is at francoishamelconsulting.com. Back to the talk.

Rami Hammoud: Yeah.

Zachary Elwood: Anybody else you

Rami Hammoud: wanna shout out?

And, uh, I… Yeah, I have one last shout-out. Um, so I’d love to shout out the man, the legend himself, Zachary Elwood. You know, like I said, I’ve always been hesitant to advertise your work to other people, mainly for selfish reasons. Um, but look, now that I’ve final tabled the main event, I’m happy to share my secret ’cause I’m good, man.

I’m quitting poker. Um, look, dude, your, you’re reading Poker Tells book, I think it was written in 2012. It’s still extremely relevant today, man. It’s crazy. Um, and the, the vi- the, the Poker Video Tell series, I gained a lot from that, right? I really love the fact that you’re able to use like real-life examples.

I don’t know if you update it. That would be really, really cool, but I, you know- Yeah … I cannot recommend that enough. Awesome. Thank you So yeah, look-

Zachary Elwood: No, that’s-

Rami Hammoud: Whoever’s listening to this It means a lot, Rami Yeah, who- yeah, of course. Whoever’s listening to this, like, no matter what level of poker player you are, if you want to gain an edge on a topic that most poker players are still ignoring today, then, you know, I definitely recommend getting your book, Reading Poker Tells, ASAP, dude.

Um, thank you, man. Thank you for your work. Thank you for your, for, for what you brought to us, you know? Without your work, I don’t know if I’d be able to be where I am today, at least in the poker world, so thank you again.

Zachary Elwood: Oh, thanks, Rami. That means a lot. Yeah. I appreciate it, you taking the time to, to say that.

Okay. Thanks a lot. Of course. Um, and we’ll end on the note of- Sure … I just wanna remind everybody, poker tells are worthless. Don’t go check them out, so just wanted to throw that in

Rami Hammoud: there. There you go.

Zachary Elwood: All right. Thank, thanks, Rami. That’s

Rami Hammoud: so funny.

Zachary Elwood: That was a talk with Rami Hamed, who got sixth place in this year’s World Series of Poker main event for $1.75 million.

I’m Zach Elwood. If you’d like to learn more about my work on poker tells, that’s at readingpokertells.com. And again, on that site, I have a new resource there with a list of frequently asked poker tells questions, which I think very well may be the most informative public resource on poker tells out there.

This has been the People Who Read People podcast, which you can learn more about at behavior-podcast.com. Music by Small Skies.

Categories
podcast

AI engineer Luke Geel’s poker-tells-analysis AI program

Can artificial intelligence learn to read poker tells and figure out when someone is bluffing? AI engineer Luke Geel (geelai.net) created software designed to do just that, and his work was featured this year on the TV coverage of the World Series of Poker Main Event. I’m the author of some poker tells books (readingpokertells.com), and when I first heard about this program, I wondered: what exactly is his program doing? And how well does it work? In this episode, Luke explains how he built and structured his program. We discuss what his software can actually do, and why teaching machines to read behavior in poker is much harder than it might seem. Along the way, we explore some challenges of machine learning, including how AI finds patterns, why understanding context and personal variation matters, and how researchers can distinguish meaningful behavioral signals from noise. We also talk about Luke’s newer work using AI to analyze sales conversations, with the goal of identifying subtle clues about people’s intentions and discovering which communication strategies are most persuasive. This is a talk about poker, AI, psychology, and the possibilities and limitations of using machines to understand what people are thinking and feeling.

Episode links:

Resources related to or mentioned in this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts generated automatically: they will contain errors)

PhiltheBeast: ESPN used AI on their official broadcast of the World Series of Poker main event, and it has sparked some debate. Here’s a clip of what they aired.

WSOP commentator: And we fed his entire day into a system designed to hunt for recurring tells, and it found something intriguing. Watch this. Right here, David settles in and plops his cheek into his hand. Doesn’t look like much, right? Could just be a guy moving around at the table, but our AI kept flagging it. Not because touching your face is some magic poker giveaway. Everybody touches their face. But this specific pattern kept showing up when decisions started getting uncomfortable. Basically, Derek slowly turns into a guy trying to become smaller than his chair.

PhiltheBeast: So in this hand, he has eight high, and in the top right, it says he has a strong likelihood of having a weak hand, which he does. And their AI software was able to identify this tell that he did when he had bad hands in tough spots. The main software was developed by this guy, Luke Gill.

Sarah Herring (pokerorg): Is AI going to be able to hack into our physical poker tells? Well, I read an article on PokerOrg recently, and the writer is actually developing and building this through AI right now. He’s using streams, and currently he has singled out Nick Airball because he’s somebody who plays on the streams regularly and somebody who’s known to bluff a lot. He’s using him as sort of a test case to discover, using all kinds of facial recognitions, different types of smiles, different eye movements, hand movements, and compiling all of this data to be able to potentially understand what Nick Airball’s, and in the future, anyone’s live tells could be.

Those were a couple clips talking about an AI-based program created to try to read the nonverbal behavior of poker players. (That first clip was from an account called philthebeast, who’s on instagram and youtube, maybe other channels; that second clip was from an account called pokerorg, which is also on instagram and youtube, maybe other channels) 

In this episode I’ll talk to Luke Geel, the creator of that poker-tells reading software. We’ll talk about what Luke built, how he constructed it, what it can do, and what it might do in the future. We also talk about some other work he’s doing at his current job, which also involves using AI tools to examine and analyze human behavior.  

The reason I wanted to talk to Luke is because I was curious about what he built and what it could actually do. As with pretty much anything these days, I saw a lot of people saying some pretty extreme and just plain silly things about his program online; some people were acting as if, based only on that short clip on World Series of Poker clip, they fully believed the software Luke built could actually accurately read poker players’ hand. For example, here’s someone saying “An AI engineer just built a system that reads your poker face. And it runs on a MacBook.” And you see a lot of this online these days; people just seeing something online about something existing, and then just believing that that thing is true. And another factor is that people looking to get clicks and attention will sometimes take the most exciting framing of something, even if they know it’s not true or even if they know very little about it, just to get eyeballs on that thing. For example, the people doing the World Series of Poker TV production have incentives to make an exciting segment to spark excitement and debate; they don’t have much incentive to dig into the details about the thing they’re featuring. Showing a clip of the program getting one guess of hand strength correct creates excitement, but a single clip doesn’t tell you about how accurate the program is long-term.

Other people were on the other end of the excitement spectrum, saying, basically “Who cares about this software, why would anyone need it; we can already see the hole cards on the TV broadcast.” That response, which I saw a good amount of in reddit threads and such, was very funny to me. Just take a second to think about how silly that is. These people are told that someone may have invented software that might be able to accurately tell whether someone is bluffing or not based on their behavior, which I think would clearly be an amazing and groundbreaking technology, and their response is: “Who cares about that? I can see their hole cards on TV.” It reminded me of something from the movie Idiocracy. 

I’m Zach Elwood, the host of this podcast, which is called People Who Read People. I’m a former professional poker player and have written some respected books on reading poker tells, which you can learn about at www.readingpokertells.com. I’ve also consulted for three World Series of Poker Main Event final table players, and a few other high stakes players. The third time I did that was actually this year; I consulted for Rami Hammoud, studying pre-final table footage of his opponents and giving him some thoughts as he prepared for the final table – and I’ll actually be talking to Rami soon for this podcast about his experience and about poker tells. I’ve been consulting for the past year for a high-stakes cash game player; a few times a month we go through high stakes poker footage with the hole cards hidden and the sound off, to go in bias-free and look for patterns in players he sometimes plays against. 

So with my interest in poker tells I was obviously interested in what Luke had created. 

I’m also someone fairly skilled in coding and AI principles; I’ve worked in the software industry as a technical writer for about ten years. I’m an occasional amateur coder. I got my start in coding almost 25 years ago, using the coding language QBASIC to build a simple program where you could input any number of starting cards for two players in a five or seven card poker game, and it would give you the percentages those cards would win if you ran out random cards to complete those hands a thousand times. For a recent personal project, I used Claude Code to help me create some pretty cool things involving computer vision and video analysis. Nothing as complex as what Luke built, but one thing I built was a tool for parsing onscreen names and board cards for helping me analyze poker footage and find specific players in hours and hours of footage: I share a demo of that on my youtube channel recently. 

So with my knowledge of how hard it is to study human behavior in the poker realm, and with my software knowledge, I’ll be honest and say that I was highly skeptical that anyone had built something practically useful in this area. As you’ll learn in this conversation with Luke, a practically useful program that accurately predicts hand strength from nonverbal behavior seems still far away. Personally I think one would need to do a huge amount of setup of such a program to get it to work well. You would need to somehow, either with some human aid, or with a lot of highly complex coding, get the software to be able to compare highly similar situations; without that work, the program would be comparing many situations that are not good for comparison, and therefore end up with a lot of noise. And there are other complexities, too, that add to the noise; for example, one factor involves the variations in camera shots and camera angles in most produced poker footage. And whether you were trying to find general population patterns or player-specific patterns, you would need a whole lot of those spots, because these models need a lot of data to work with.

And I want to be clear here: Luke has not acted as if his program has succeeded in its task. One of his public quotes was that this project was quote “significantly more difficult than I had initially hoped.” end quote. I want to emphasize that I respect what Luke has done here; even if he hasn’t shown it can do something useful yet. It’s an interesting project and I’d love to be able to play around with what he’s built. 

After our talk I had asked Luke if I could send him some edited clips of a specific high-stakes player, edited down to just a few seconds before and during large river bets. This gets back to my view that one needs highly similar and comparable spots to be able to get machine learning or AI to find something valuable. Luke told me the following:

“Regarding the clips: happy to run them, with one caveat. The model needs a lot of hands to learn anything. Across ~5 full session sessions of Nik Airball (by sessions I mean entire hustler stream videos so about 6~ hours each)., his physical behavior on its own scored about chance on sessions the model hadn’t seen; the signal came from bet sizing and hand context (~0.70 AUC). So training on a handful of clips wouldn’t give a prediction I’d trust. What I can do is run your clips through the extractor and send you a side-by-side of what it measures on the bluffs vs. the value bets (blink rate, freezing, time to act, posture shifts, etc.). That’s descriptive rather than a prediction, but it could still be interesting for the episode. The more clips the better, ideally 15+ of each.” end quote 

One interesting thing worth noting here in what Luke said; he said that while it wasn’t finding much consistently in nonverbal signals, there was a signal for bet sizing and hand context. That would make sense. For example, we know that large bets on the river — the last round of betting— will be significantly skewed toward value bets, for all players (except maybe some criminally insane ones).

Based on what I know of Luke’s software, though, I do think that it would be interesting to plug in a bunch of directly comparable spots into it, even just comparable spots of a general population of many different players — like a few seconds of many different large river bets — and see what it spits out. I do think there are some general population behavioral patterns that machine learning / AI could detect with a big sample size. For one example, the quality of a player’s eye movement is one of the most important things to study in the realm of poker tells, and one reason for that is that while people are often more cognizant of their general gaze direction — like whether they’re looking toward their opponent or not — they are less aware of how many small movements their eyes are making; it’s just a less consciously examined area due to not being something talked about in general poker tells content. And I think one thing software like this would find in a general population is that, if we’re just talking large bets on the river, to really limit the scope of the enquiry, looser, more dynamic eye movements would be significantly correlated with stronger hands and also have a pretty decent effect size. And if you were able to create software that could take new compilations of half value bets and half bluffs and was able to reliably predict a bluff or value bet at even a low success rate — at even something like 55% — I think that would be huge news in the behavior research world. And I do think that’s something that is quite doable and findable, with the right experimental setup – as I know it’s possible from all the poker tells work I’ve done. And again, we’re talking general population there; when you get into player-specific patterns, that’s where such things can become even more reliable and useful — picking out specific eye movement patterns for specific players. 

I’ll mention here that I have a spreadsheet of notes on thousands of televised poker hands. I built that database to help me with my work on my book Verbal Poker Tells, tracking all sorts of verbal statements that poker players say, and to examine how those patterns show up in a large sample. Then I kept adding to it over time. I mention this just to say that if Luke or anyone else did want to partner with me on finding a bunch of similar hands or similar situations, or even to find a bunch of hands from the same player, I would be a good person to talk to about that. 

Even if you’re not into poker tells, I think you’ll find this talk with Luke interesting, as it gets into how he went about constructing his software, and also topics about how machine learning and AI works. You may end up with a deeper learning of machine learning and AI after listening to this talk.

I’ll also mention that Luke had worked on an AI-enabled program for parsing poker footage looking for specific kinds of spots. That’s at his site https://geelai.net. The description of that says “Name a player, starting hand, pot or moment, and the matching hands from processed broadcasts line up as clips.” This is something that would be helpful for poker content creators. 

Like I mentioned, I was working on something similar myself recently, based on doing some recent poker tells consulting for a World Series of Poker Main Event final table player and wanting to more easily find timestamps featuring specific players and specific poker spots. Mine doesn’t use generative AI but is just using deterministic onscreen text recognition to recognize player names and board cards. 

A little bit more about Luke: 

He’s appeared on the Garage Game poker stream a few times; that’s New England’s biggest poker livestream. He has a Bachelors in Math and Economics, and an MS in AI. He’s an ex AI Engineer for the US Air Force, and his current job is Founding AI Engineer for Unveer.

Another note that the youtube version of this episode will include a couple minutes of Luke’s program running; I’ll include that at the end of the episode on youtube. 

Okay here’s the talk with Luke Geel…

Zach Elwood: Hey, Luke. Thanks for joining me.

Luke Geel: Oh, thanks for inviting me, Zach. I’m, uh, super happy to be here, super excited for this conversation.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, this is great. I mean, I had so many … A- as you know, I was sending you questions about it and, uh, out of curiosity about it, and then I was like, “Oh, I should do this for the podcast,” because I’m sure other people would have similar questions.

So, uh, thank you for that.

Luke Geel: Yeah, you’re welcome.

Zach Elwood: So maybe we could start with, um, yeah, what, w- how did you, uh, create this thing? What, what, what got into your head to create it?

Luke Geel: Sure. So let’s see. I do a lot of AI for work. Um, I, I just finished up my master’s in AI a few months ago, and- Congrats … thank you very much.

Um, I spent a lot of time thinking about AI, um, working with AI, and, uh, I love poker. I’ve been playing since, I don’t know, like a- a- end of high school, maybe, I don’t know, six, seven, eight years-ish. So I, I spent a lot of time thinking about poker, and then I also spent a lot of time thinking about AI. I don’t know.

I, I, I guess I wanted to kind of combine both my interests because I had some, um, free time with my, my previous job, which was fairly laid-back-ish, so I had a lot of time for side projects, right? And I wanted to do something that I was very interested in because I feel like the more interested in something you are, the more inclined you will be to kind of continue to a- a- and pursue it.

So I just thought, “Okay, let’s definitely do something AI poker related.” But I, I, I don’t really want to do something that’s been done before, and I saw plenty of AI poker playing programs that can, like, play against each other or play against humans and, um, uh, you know, I, I, I thought that was cool and, and still very impressive stuff, but I don’t know, personally, I, I, I wanted to kind of do something different.

I don’t know. Playing poker, I, I do put a decent amount of work and effort into, um, tells, both verbal and physical. I read, um … My first introduction to you was through your first book, Reading Poker Tells, which I, I must have read, I don’t know, f- five years ago or so. I don’t think tells are necessarily, like, a huge part of poker.

If someone’s starting to, to, to learn poker, I wouldn’t say, “Oh, start with learning about tells.” No, I’d say, you know, do that towards the end. Do, you know, the, the, the basic game theory, um, strategy and whatnot. But I do think if, if you’re playing a lot of poker and you don’t put in any effort into tells, you’re leaving some money out on the table.

Now, whether that’s learning your own tells to prevent other people from exploiting you or learning other people’s tells to exploit them, either way I, I, I think there’s some merit in tells, so I, I do put in a decent amount of work. So that’s kind of where I, I, I, I came up with the idea of, “Hey, you know, I, I read all of your books.”

Um, well, actually I haven’t read, I haven’t read your third book, I’ll be honest. I’m halfway through your second book. Um, I read the first book twice though. It was, it was fantastic.

Zach Elwood: Awesome.

Luke Geel: Um-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I think you’ll like the third one. Yeah, it’s like kinda- Oh,

Luke Geel: yeah …

Zach Elwood: kind of a good summary and it has a lot more examples and such.

Yeah.

Luke Geel: I’m excited. I’m very ex- I, I have ordered it, so I, I will be reading it shortly. Oh, awesome. Um, yeah. So I, I thought, “Okay, I haven’t seen some AI poker tells detection yet, so why don’t I, I take a crack at that?” So, so I did, and, uh, it had just started off as a personal project and I mean, it, it still is kind of a, a, a personal project, or I guess it was a personal project.

I’ll, I’ll, I’ll get to that. But yeah, so I, I, I was building this project, posting a lot about it on my LinkedIn, that a- and my X account, although my X account doesn’t have as, as, as many followers. I’m more active on LinkedIn. Um, but I was posting about it on, on LinkedIn, posting my progress and some, you know, output videos.

And someone from Omaha Productions had reached out to me, and they saw that video and they said, “Hey, this looks really cool. I work for Omaha Productions. We’re putting on the World Series of Poker Main Event broadcast on ESPN this year. We think your model is, is really cool and we might wanna show that on the Main Event broadcast.”

Hmm. And I was like, “Yeah, that sounds amazing.”

Zach Elwood: Very cool. Yeah, I mean, the, the, the big question I had, and I, I– the obvious question that I and other people have is, like, how impressive is it? What’s your, what’s your view of, uh… Well, maybe we could back up and say, what i- what is it doing? W- how would you describe, like, what’s the input that you feed, and what does it give you output?

Luke Geel: Super high level, th-the input is video plus audio of someone playing poker, and then the output is something that says all the possible different– Well, not all the possible different hand strengths, but something that says, like, you know, very strong hand, strong hand, medium hand, weak hand, uh, and then how likely each one is at that current moment in time.

Um, so that’s very high level. Now, if we zoom in- And it,

Zach Elwood: and it’s doing, uh… C-c-could you say whether it’s doing– I think it’s trying to analyze player-specific stuff, so it, i-i-is- am I understanding that right? It’s, like, recognizing a player and then looking for that player later, and then… Is that, is that right, or is it doing some general player analysis too?

Luke Geel: A, a little bit of both. Um, but y-you were right about it focusing on, on one specific player. It’s, it’s less about having to, like, recognize that player, because, um, how I’ve been using it is I would just get footage of one specific player and say, “Hey, here’s one player,” you know.

Zach Elwood: Ohhh. “

Luke Geel: Do, do work.”

Zach Elwood: I see. I see.

Yeah.

Luke Geel: Let’s say you had footage of nine people playing at a table, and you say, “Hey, I wanna find this one s- person’s tells.” Th-that’s just one extra step, and all you have to do is give it photos of that person’s face, and then it knows, “Hey, this is the target.” Um, and so th-that’s fairly simple. But to make it even simpler, which is what I did, was give it footage of just one player, so it, uh, circumvents that one step.

Zach Elwood: Right. And, and are you focusing on– So when you’re feeding in that footage, are you, like, feeding in, like, any of that player’s footage, or are you, like, filtering it down to, like, specific spots like big river bets, or, or are you just feeding it a lot of stuff?

Luke Geel: High level is footage of, of one player or multiple players, and then, then you can just tell it, “Hey, focus on this one player.”

Um, wh-which again, i-isn’t very difficult. That’s just one extra step. But then the inputs, um, the, the thing is there’s– W-when I first started, in an ideal world, uh, world, I was hoping that I could just take, you know, hours and hours of one player playing and just give it to the model and say, “Hey,” you know, “work.”

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Luke Geel: Um, but no, it’s not that easy, unfortunately. You have to kind of build the inputs yourself-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Luke Geel: because w-with any model training You need great data. Um, th- there’s, there’s really like three pillars when it comes to AI and, and, and models. Um, one pillar is, is data, one is compute, and then one is algorithms.

Compute’s fairly simple for any of the non-frontier companies. Like OpenAI and Anthropic, they need the absolute best compute, and that’s why companies like NVIDIA will keep making better and better chips. But right, right now, smaller companies and smaller models, you can get away with using compute available.

You’ll probably have to, have to rent it from the cloud or something like that, but I don’t need like more advanced compute. And, and compute’s simple because you can really just kind of throw money at it and just buy more compute and, and then that’s pretty straightforward. Um, but for this project, compute wasn’t difficult because I can just, you know, I, I think, I think it cost me, like, a few thousand dollars to, to train this, whereas something like the next version of ChatGPT is gonna cost, you know, millions if not billions of dollars to train.

Um, so compute wasn’t, wasn’t hard. Um, data, for my project, the data is people playing poker. Yeah, the input was video, but you have to convert everything to, um, I mean, to, to, to numbers. And th- there’s, there’s many steps to get there, but I’ll, I’ll, I’ll break it down for you. One of the first steps for my project was taking footage of people playing poker and then turning that into data.

Um, and there, there, there’s so many different types of data for something like this. Like, the, the most, I don’t know, straightforward one that, that most people would think would be, um, okay, let- let’s try to observe any type of physical behaviors, like, um, blink rate. That was one of the first ones I added in because that was fairly simple to add in.

Uh, it, it’s relatively common knowledge that blink rate can be a, a, a tell. Um, same thing with, um, breathing. This is a little harder to interpret via computer, but i- if I’m at a poker table, and I, I’ve seen this before, where somebody, you know, makes a flush or something, and then they start breathing really heavily because they’re, they’re, um…

I, I think maybe I got that from your book, actually.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, whereas, like, bluffers might be more, like, restrained and have a more static, uh, still- Mm-hmm … kind of sense, and yeah, like a more ke- in keeping with, like, the more physically relaxed, loose kind of things, yeah.

Luke Geel: Exactly.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, yeah.

Luke Geel: Um, so the input is as many, you know, physical behaviors that you can track as possible.

And it’s not necessarily, “Oh, let me add in this one behavior to see if, see if it’s a tell.” It’s, “Let me add in every single possible physical behavior that I can think of, and then have the AI decide, ‘Hey, is this a tell or not?'”

Zach Elwood: Yeah, let me, let me, let me ask you there, um, because I was playing around with these kinda ideas, and it’s like, are you using some, uh, kinda open source or non-open source, um, computer vision algorithm that detects and tracks body and face movements?

Like, I know there’s a few of those. Are you– Is, is that what it’s using, or is it using some- Yeah … other kind? Yeah.

Luke Geel: Yeah. For, for, for that, yes, that is open source. That’s a mix of, um, there’s some PyTorch in there. Mm. There’s some, um, PyTorch was for facial detection, so-

Zach Elwood: Mm …

Luke Geel: uh, going back to your idea of, like, you have to tell it to recognize a player, um, I did have to do that just to make sure it, it didn’t make any mistakes.

Um, because if somebody else’s face happened to get into the frame, you know, it might get confused-

Zach Elwood: Right. Yeah. Say wider shot. Yeah, yeah.

Luke Geel: Wider shot if it zooms out or if the person goes off frame and it, it might get someone in the background. Um, so there’s that. Um, th- there’s a library out there called MediaPipe- Yeah, that one

Zach Elwood: which is great for like- That one, that one’s really cool … oh, MediaPipe. Yeah. I, I was- Mm-hmm … that’s one I was looking at. Yeah.

Luke Geel: Yes. So th- that

Zach Elwood: one- It tracks all the movements like of, you know… It, it maps your like skeleton basically and ma- it can also like tell like minor movements of the eyes and mouth and all this kind of stuff, right?

Luke Geel: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Um, so that one was great. There’s PyAudio because it, it is able to, um, do audio a- a- as well as physical tells. Um- Hmm … but I’ll, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll keep progressing th- through this question of, of, of different inputs. So anything physical, anything audio, and then, um, I’ll call it like game-specific data.

So how much did the person bet? Um, okay, so I’ll, I’ll, I’ll back it up a little bit. There were a lot of people online who w- when they first saw it and, and, and saw, you know, like the articles about it in Wired and, and when it went on the news, they said, “Oh, this is stupid because, you know, you can see the cards on the screen.”

Maybe they thought, “Oh, well, the AI can see the cards, so you know, like why does that matter?” It was using that to train, um, because you do literally- Because it know,

Zach Elwood: it needs to know the hand strength-

Luke Geel: It needs, it- … to, to train Exactly. It needs to learn like how somebody behaves when they have certain hand strengths.

Yeah. But when it makes predictions, no, it, it does not because that would be cheating.

Zach Elwood: Right. Yeah.

Luke Geel: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: It’s, that would be cheating. Yeah.

Luke Geel: Yeah. That would defeat the whole point. Um, so- Defeat the purpose,

Zach Elwood: yeah …

Luke Geel: so w- w- with inputs, what I was trying to do was make it as close to Like a human playing, right? So for instance, if, if we were playing together, I wouldn’t know your cards, right?

That would be, that would also be cheating. But I would know how much you bet, I would know how much was in the pot, I would know how long you took from when the action was on you until when you made your bet. So I would give it all the information that humans would have access to.

Zach Elwood: Whether I verbalized or not,

Luke Geel: that kind of thing too.

Whether you verbalized or not. If you verbalized, how did you verbalize? Oh, wow. Okay. Yeah. Was it, um… And then, uh, so I’ll, I’ll go a little deeper into that. Let’s say, um… Let me think. So-

Zach Elwood: I know these, these can be hard things to talk about ’cause it is so

Luke Geel: complex . It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s complex and also, like, the more I talk about it, the more things, like, I want to say and, like- Hmm.

Yeah … the more ideas I have. Uh, I- So many branches

Zach Elwood: to go off

Luke Geel: and- So many branches. A lot of branches. Uh, but I’ll go down the one branch of, um, physical versus verbal. Um, well, okay, I’ll just go down verbal now. So with verbal, it’s, it’s like you had said, I think it was in your last episode actually, how you said one myth is that most communication is non-verbal compared to verbal, which, which totally makes sense.

But th- there is some information in the non-verbal side, which is, you know, how you say it. So if I have, in, in my data, if I have 10 instances of you saying, “I bet $100,” um, I c- I can use that specific sample to figure out what is your baseline. Like-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Yeah … what is your baseline- It’s more, it’s just more data, yeah.

A- and, and some people might-

Luke Geel: More data.

Zach Elwood: And, uh, and for people listening, some people are confused by that ’cause some people categorize that kind of, like, how you say things as non-verbal, but other people will call that verbal. Like, to me, that’s more like verbal than it is non-verbal. But anyway- Oh

ca-carry on. You know, there can be, like, different ways to classify it. But like- Okay … I, yeah, but it’s definitely data no matter how you slice it. Hmm. It’s

Sarah Herring (pokerorg): like,

Zach Elwood: yeah, how people say things and you c- you can find noticeable tells like that in, in, in, when playing poker about, like, s- you know, somebody for, one example is, like, somebody has a questioning tone of voice, like their-

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm

Zach Elwood: their pitch raises at the end, that’s, like, more correlated with, uh, you know, value bet, a, a strong hand because bluffers just like to sound more confident and such, yeah. But anyway, carry

Luke Geel: on. Exactly, yeah. But n-no, I mean, y- you pretty much just, uh, n-nailed the What, what, what, what’s the saying? Hit the, hit the nail on the head.

The nail on the head.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Luke Geel: Yeah, that one. Yeah. You, you got it exactly right. Um, actually I think that was one of my, my personal tells actually when I first started playing was, um, I would have that, like, little question type. I would like, I, I would bet, but how I would say it would seem like it was a question.

2,000?

Zach Elwood: Yeah,

Luke Geel: yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Um, I remember I was playing one time and then a, a dealer even commented on it, actually, like, during the hand too, and I was like, “Oh, I think that might be one of my tells, actually. I should, I should stop doing that.” Um, but yeah, it’s able to pick up on, on audio tells as well, and then, um-

Zach Elwood: So that’s a separate, and that’s a separate open source, like, audio- Mm-hmm

tracking algorithm of some sort?

Luke Geel: Yes. That was Pie Audio.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Luke Geel: Um, and then so for that, that is something that the AI needs to recognize, um, unlike the, the faces. Unless, unless for whatever reason the, the footage only has, like, that person speaking. Um, if, if it does, that’s great, that saves a step. But usually the- like, like for the ESPN World Series footage Their footage would focus in on, on one player, but everybody else in the, on the table had microphones.

So you have to get all of everybody else’s v- um, voices out of there.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Luke Geel: So you can, uh… So what you would do there is you find samples of your target speaking a lot, and then give it to the, um, AI and say, “Hey, this is the person who’s speaking. Like, this is their voice. You need to recognize their voice.”

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm. Um, but it, it’s so complex because if you do that, now you lose out on what other people are saying. So let’s say I’m playing a hand and somebody’s talking to me, and I’m talking back and forth, there’s a good chance that I don’t have a super strong hand because I’m not as invested into the, the hand.

But if, if, if I’m in a hand and somebody asks me a question and I don’t respond, it could be because I’m so invested in the hand because I’m either so nervous that I’m bluffing or I have such a good hand, s- something like that. So there’s, there’s so many things to think about.

Zach Elwood: Um- Right. This-

Luke Geel: And, and,

Zach Elwood: you know- That’s what strikes me about your, your project.

It’s like, it is just so, there is just so much data to parse and, um-

Luke Geel: It was a, it was an unbelievable amount of data. The more I kept building, the more, like, data sources I would have to think, like, “Oh, do I have to, do I have to even have time to add this in?” Like, um, yeah, it w- it just kept growing and growing.

Zach Elwood: One question I had is, you know, when you s- when I saw the footage of it working, it seemed like it was, you know, overlaying boxes on certain areas- Mm-hmm … and tracking certain things. I, I imagine you had to s- tell it to do that. It’s not like it’s not- Yes … it’s not like… So that’s, that’s what, I guess that’s my question.

Are you telling it- Okay. Yes … to like look at certain areas of the body and face? Are you constraining it-

Luke Geel: Yes, I did …

Zach Elwood: to those measurements? Yeah.

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm. Okay. Um, and then, yeah, so I, I, I would tell it what to look for, and then I guess this is where, like, domain knowledge is helpful. Um, because if someone’s never played poker and they don’t know anything about poker tells, they might know, they might not know, like, what to be looking for.

Y- you could tell the AI, “Hey, focus on this person’s face,” but then it’s like, is it, like, h- how their face moves? That’s a wide open- Is it-

Zach Elwood: Yeah,

Luke Geel: that’s too wide. Yeah, it’s, it’s too

Zach Elwood: wide. Yeah.

Luke Geel: Um, yeah, far too wide.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Luke Geel: Um, so you wanna get as specific as possible.

Zach Elwood: Right. Right. Yeah, and you’re, and you’re, and you’re telling it, yeah, you’re, you’re deciding the measurements that the, that it’s tracking.

Um-

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I mean, it’s such a complex area. I gue- I guess, um- The, the obvious question that I and others would have is, like, how impressive is what it’s doing now? Can you talk a little bit about how the, you know, what it, what it’s able to do, what you’ve been impressed by, what it might need more- Sure

work on, those kinds of things.

Luke Geel: Um, so what it’s able to do, it can, it, it can work great under ideal circumstances. So the ideal circumstances are, number one is ample amount of data for whatever, for whoever you’re focusing on. If someone comes to me and s- and they say, “Hey, I’m playing, um, against, you know, Bob next week.

Here’s some footage of him playing poker. Please find his tells,” and they send me, like, one single hand, I’m gonna say, “No, no, you can’t do that. That’s impossible.” Um, th- that’s why when I first started, um, I, I, I used Nick Airball as the subject because there’s just hundreds of hours of him playing. He, he plays pretty wide, so he plays tons of hands.

Um, he was the ideal candidate. Um, so n- number one is data. Number two is, I mean, I know it’s gonna sound stupid, but does this person have tells or not? Do they actually, you know-

Zach Elwood: Like variability of behavior

Luke Geel: is what- Variability, exactly … yeah. Nick Airball var- varies his behavior wildly, so he’s great. But for someone like, um, I think it’s Christian Vogelsang, he’s the guy who wears the hoodie with the mask over his mouth as well as sunglasses, and then he never moves too.

If, if someone came to me and said, “Hey, could you find this guy’s tells?” I’d probably say, I, I’d say, “Probably not.” You know, it’s not gonna be that good. Um, so-

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Then you also need, like, a, a good sample of, of, like, bluffs and value bets too, right?

Luke Geel: Exactly. Um, if, if you have data, but it’s, it’s, um, footage o- of a person playing, but every single hand they just happen to have, you know, like, the nuts, you’re not gonna know what it looks like when they’re bluffing.

Um, I mean, I, I guess you could try to infer it yourself and you can say, “Hey, this is what it looks like when this person’s really strong, because they always have a good hand. If they do something different, it probably means they’re bluffing.” But w- without data, the AI is not gonna really know that. Um, so yeah, data’s very important.

Picking somebody who v- varies their behavior, um, that’s also very useful. And, um-

Zach Elwood: Yeah … I

Luke Geel: mean, the, the,

Zach Elwood: the people who try- The more, the more variability they have in their behavior, the more likely they are to have imbalances in their behavior. Like, it doesn’t-

Luke Geel: Exactly …

Zach Elwood: not necessarily, because they could just have a lot of noise, but the more likely it becomes versus, like, somebody who’s completely stoic.

Yeah.

Luke Geel: Absolutely, yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, the, uh, I mean, the thing that really, um, confounds me when I think about how to set something like, like that up is just, like, the situations are so different, you know, between like … And, and maybe that’s what, maybe it’s do- doing that, like if you’re telling it to focus on significant bets, right?

Like, and, and, and only compare, like, the significant bet spots, then maybe it’s doing that. But that’s, that’s what occurs to me is, like, it could theoretically be comparing situations that were, like, very unalike, uh, like checking or calling or betting a small amount versus betting a large amount, or comparing, like, river bets to, like, pre-flop raises or something.

Do, can you talk a little bit about … D- is there so- is there something you set up to try to compare, um, comparable spots, if that makes sense?

Luke Geel: It, it, it makes sense. I haven’t set that up. That, that is an area I, I, I could explore, absolutely. Um, and it, it’s, it’s t- it’s, it’s doable. Um, I, I haven’t, I haven’t put in much work into this project since ESPN.

Um, I actually– So I, I started a new job, and I got hired because of, of, of this, um, project actually, because the, the- Oh, very

Zach Elwood: cool …

Luke Geel: the company… Yeah. Thank you very much. And, um, the, the company who hired me, it, we’re doing similar work to-

Zach Elwood: Computer vision?

Luke Geel: N- no, actually, audio. Um- Ah … so it’s, it’s essentially the poker project, but instead of video, it’s audio, and instead of poker, it’s, um, sales.

Zach Elwood: Oh, very

Luke Geel: cool. Um- Yeah. Yeah. Right.

Zach Elwood: Tone of voice- Uh … and, uh, pauses-

Luke Geel: Tone of voice … and things like that, and- Pauses, um, rate of speed, and also, like, what they say, of course. Um, but yes, yes, you’re, you’re spot on. Uh, but to go back to- What they say and how

Zach Elwood: they say it. Yeah, yeah.

Luke Geel: Exactly, what they say and h- and how they say it.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Luke Geel: So to go back to your question about comparable spots, yeah, that’s doable. I think, um, adjacent to that, and this is far more important, is, um, the difference when it comes to, like, player to player, because not all players are the same. Obviously, everyone’s gonna have different tells. That’s kind of what the whole project, that’s kind of like the whole point.

But- Everybody pretty much pl- has their own, you know, slightly different style of play. Um, and for the example I’ll use in f- that, that relates to this project is, let’s say you have two people playing, right? And, and they’re playing the exact same hand. They’re in the exact same spot, right? There’s two different universes of, of this, th- this poker hand, but with two different players.

One of them is really good, one of them is really bad. In each of these scenarios, that player has pocket aces, right? Everybody knows pocket aces is the best hand, right? So pre-flop, both of those, both of those players are gonna think, “Oh, I have, uh, an insanely strong hand. Let’s bet as much as we can. Um, my hand strength is really very, very strong,” right?

That’s a no-brainer. But then let’s say they, they bet pre-flop and then they get four opponents, and the flop comes down five, six, seven. A really good player is gonna know, “Oh, hey, you know, pocket aces is no longer a really good hand. I might be screwed here. The strength of my hand goes down.” But the bad player might not even realize that.

They might still think, “Oh, pocket aces, that’s the best hand. My hand strength is really good.” You need to be able to account for that. You need to be able to know, hey, this player has a really str- had a really strong hand before the flop, and now they don’t, but they don’t know that. They still think that they have a really strong hand.

So you can’t ne- necessarily just map their behaviors to their actual hand strength. You need to map it to their perceived hand strength. Um, so-

Zach Elwood: Right, which is, which gets into the massive complexity of, of trying to s- study this stuff, um, because yeah, the ambiguity Uh, perceived, uh, the, the ambiguity of hand strength, you know, especially like obviously that goes down until you’re at the river where like the ambiguity is minimal because people who bet are usually always gonna like wanna call or, or not wanna call.

It’s either bluff or value bet. But yeah, there is th- there can be this like massive ambiguity and, uh- Mm-hmm … ambival- ambivalence either, uh, also in many cases where it’s like, I don’t know if I’m ahead or behind, but, you know, it’s like I, I got a bet. Yeah. You know? So yeah, that– when I think about the, the way to study those things, it’s like even as a proof of concept, it’s like restraining it to like the least ambiguous spots like on the river, you know?

Um,

Luke Geel: yeah. Yeah. That’s, that’s true. And then so what I did, um, and for context, th- that was kind of the missing piece for a while, and not even in, in this, you know, Poker Tells project, just in, in the, the, the realm of, um, like AI model training. That piece of, hey, I need to understand this one specific person.

I can’t just generalize to everybody. That was kind of the missing piece for a while, and that’s, um, that’s kind of what, uh, I, I’m working on right now, um, at my new job. Um- Making

Zach Elwood: it more,

Luke Geel: more

Zach Elwood: player or, or person specific. Yeah.

Luke Geel: Making it person specific, having it l- learn about that specific player. So-

Zach Elwood: Ah,

Luke Geel: yeah.

Yeah … what I had to do was watch that, watch how that specific person played, um, in all of their hands to learn like, hey, this person’s really good. This person knows exactly what they’re doing. They know, hey, pocket aces is great pre-flop, but then when five, six, seven comes, it’s no longer really strong. Um, and you can learn that through like their betting patterns or if they call.

Something else i- is, um, like risk aversion. Like how, how much risk is this person going to take? Um, I don’t know if, if you saw some video, it w- it was a poker clip. It was Alex Foxen against some drunk person, uh, for like, like in, in some $10,000 buy-in. Oh, I did see that one.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, yeah. And

Luke Geel: I remember- Exactly.

So like that guy who was playing against Alex Foxen, um, it seemed like he was super rich and he, you know, had money to, money to throw around. So his risk aversion was, was through the roof.

Zach Elwood: Just to note that Luke meant to say that the guy had very low risk aversion, in other words, very high risk tolerance.

Okay, back to the talk.

Luke Geel: So that’s gonna be far different than somebody who their net worth is $11,000. They just bought into this $10,000 poker tournament, right? They’re not looking to, um, you know, have these big gamble- gambling spots. Like they might not chase their draws. They might just play like ultra-premium hands.

You need to know that to be able to account for their, for their behavior.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, like the, the, the, the less risk-averse person, more rich person maybe might be, like have much more physically loose and verbally loose behavior throughout many hands, right? That might be one way it would show up for, and, and, and, and like their b- their baseline of like general movement, uh, might be like looser and more relaxed and more, have more movements- Exactly

and things, things like that. Yeah.

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Luke Geel: Yeah. So that, that’s kind of where, um, what I was saying earlier, how like I kept building this product out and I was just thinking about more and more, you know, areas of data to add and things to account for, and it just kept growing, and I was like, “Whoa, this is, um, this is far more, more than, than I anticipated originally.”

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I’d imagine it gets, it keeps, like many projects, you, you ke- it keeps ballooning. You’re like, “Oh, there’s-” Mm-hmm. “… this leads to other things, and how do I account for-” Yeah “… these things?” But, well, I was curious, as somebody, uh, y- you saw that thing I was putting together that was about recognizing, um- players’ names in the video footage-

Sarah Herring (pokerorg): Mm-hmm

Zach Elwood: which I was using for parsing poker video footage, and then I was adding, like, recognition of the board cards, too. I was curious, did you struggle with getting your program to recognize on-screen text? ‘Cause I was really struggling with some of the fonts were, like, really skinny and it would, like, have problems, so I was, like, having to enhance it to get it to, like, recognize words.

Were you- did you struggle with that at all?

Luke Geel: Um, so let me think. So I did have to build that for the- well, I didn’t have to, but I chose to because it, it saved me a lot of time, otherwise I’d have to do it manually. If you’re only working with one specific poker stream, like, like, let’s say, um, for, for Nick Airball, I would only focus on the Hustler Casino Live because-

Zach Elwood: Right,

Luke Geel: you use their graphics-

Zach Elwood: uh, there’s, it’s easier to focus

Luke Geel: on one … and their text. You use their graphics, you have their- Yeah … text, their format, yeah. That

Zach Elwood: was simple. You can get it to match the known, um, images-

Luke Geel: Exactly. Yeah … of their

Zach Elwood: text and stuff. Yeah.

Luke Geel: Um, so I, I just picked, like, a, a few very popular streams and just built, like, a profile for each stream, so that, that kind of made it, um, much simpler.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, that’s what I was struggling with. At first I was trying to use generic, uh, text recognition algorithms, and then it was having- Okay … it was having such problems, I was like, “Oh, I can just, for at least for this specific solution, I can plug in the images of the board cards so it can recognize the values from, and compare them.”

Mm-hmm. And so that was my solution because it was really having trou- problems with the board cards. But anyway, that, that, it, it was interesting, like, the challenge of, like, getting it… Yeah, ’cause sometimes the, the fonts are weird, sometimes they’re skinny. So the, the- Mm-hmm … generic programs can really have problems, like, out- off the bat doing that kind of thing.

Yeah. Like-

Luke Geel: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: or may- maybe even recognizing the word bet or something, or raise or whatever it is. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Um, I don’t know if this is an applicable question, but I know that sometimes with, like, machine learning algorithms, you know, especially if you’re trying to get them to parse things on their own and not restrain them, there can be kind of a black box aspect- Mm-hmm

to them in terms of what they’re finding. But I would imagine because you’re constraining it to, like, certain measurements, that you don’t have that black box aspect, or am I wrong on that? Mm-mm. Is it, is it, is it sometimes, like, giving you a read that you’re surprised by and you can’t figure out why it’s

Luke Geel: giving you

Zach Elwood: that read?

Luke Geel: Sure. So black box is kind of like, like, like a spectrum almost, and it, it depends on what algorithms you’re using. Some algorithms, um, are completely black box. Um, like, like neural networks are n- notoriously black box because it’s very hard to understand their outputs. Whereas something like, uh, a decision tree algorithm, it’s not black box at all because you can go through the decision tree yourself and, and you can see how the model came to its conclusion.

Zach Elwood: So- And yours is more, yours is more decision tree because you’ve-

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm Is

Zach Elwood: that

Luke Geel: true? Um, yeah. Well, so mine’s less of a black box because I built it like that. Because for something like this, it’s– you kinda need to know why it made the decision. I couldn’t just hand somebody some black box model and say, “Hey, this is super accurate.

Um, you can use this on, on this player.” Because if, if they’re using it in real time, they need to know, like, what their tells are. You can’t just, like, hold up a phone and say, “Hey, record this player, tell me what their t-tells are, like, while I’m playing against them,” right? You need to have this information ahead of time.

So I went down the route of a less black box algorithm, most likely sacrificing some accuracy, um, but just because I– that, that’s just-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you want, you wanna know- I actively don’t use … you wanna know what its, what its factors are. Yeah, you, you want-

Luke Geel: Exactly. Yeah …

Zach Elwood: you want observability. Yeah.

Luke Geel: 100%, yeah.

Zach Elwood: The way you’ve got it set up, when it gives you, like, the read, like say, on that chart of, like, its predictions and then, like, you know, the chart, the, the, the graph of bluffing is really high for its prediction.

Do, does that, does that, does that also come with an output of, like, why, what the factors are for why it’s reading that bluff highly or-

Luke Geel: Yes …

Zach Elwood: likely to be bluff?

Luke Geel: Yeah. It, it, it usually comes out, so it’ll come out with, with, with some report. Mm. Um, it will, um, watch, you know, let’s say like 100 hours of one person playing.

Um, and it, it, it takes a long time to, to go through all that footage, but it’ll output some report and say, “Hey, these are the behaviors that, that we think are most correlated with specific hand strengths of, for this one player.” And then when it watches it, it will look for those, uh, behaviors and, and that’s how it’s able to come up with some like, hey, you know, bluff 40%, weak hand, you know, 20%.

The-

Zach Elwood: And that’s where- … that’s where it comes … and that’s where the AI is doing the work, right? ‘Cause I know there’s a difference between like the more pr- you know, um, deterministic machine learning aspects-

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm …

Zach Elwood: versus like you’re using an AI layer to like interpret all the, the pieces of data and come up with predictions, right?

Is that how it’s, it’s working?

Luke Geel: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So it’s, it’s not even, um, oh, you know, this Poker Tells model. It’s, it’s this Poker Tells architecture. The model is just like one piece. Other pieces include how are you actually extracting the data to feed it to that model. Um, so there were a lot of, of different components of this architecture, one of them being machine learning, where you have this data and you’re able to pass it, um, into this model for an output.

Um, but other pieces w- i- include, um, a vision model. So similar to like ChatGPT, which is a language model, you have these vision models where they can go from image/video to text, and these were very helpful for watching poker footage and then be able to get data that it’s otherwise like pretty hard to do it via code.

For instance, s- if someone’s like shuffling their chips with their hand, um, it, it’s kind of hard to capture that with code. Where something like blink rate, that’s pretty easy. You can say, hey, like, you know, they, they blinked five times in 10 seconds, that’s one blink every two seconds. But with, with shuffling chips, like you can’t, you can’t really code that into the, i- into, um, some like computer vision.

So you use these vision models to then just say, “Hey, any time this person is shuffling their chips, set that variable to one. When they’re not, you set that variable, variable to zero.” So it’s able to capture, uh, u- using these vision models, that was a, a, a big piece that was missing that I, I, I, uh, only added in, I don’t know, right before the, the ESPN people saw it.

Um, but I was kind of struggling- Oh … ’cause I wanted, I wanted more data, but I wasn’t able to do it via code. So I, I added, I added this layer of, um, a vision model for this like extraction that was too hard for c- the regular code.

Zach Elwood: So you’re

Luke Geel: saying- So that was another piece in the architecture …

Zach Elwood: if I’m understanding correctly, uh, what, what’s the name of one of these vision models?

Luke Geel: Um, ChatGPT has some vision models. They’re- Okay … they’re different than the language models, but, um, like OpenAI has, has built them and, and provides them via API.

Zach Elwood: So if I’m understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, but some of the, some of the way it’s recording data is more deterministic machine learning aspects of like using like that media pipe thing of tracking some things, and then some of it’s like a more AI like- watching a video and, and saying, “Oh, this person’s doing this thing, this person’s doing that thing.” So it’s, it’s less deterministic and, and, and it’s more like what we would call degenerative, uh, you know, uh, probabilistic, uh, outcome. Is it– Does that make sense?

Luke Geel: Yeah, absolutely.

Zach Elwood: Just a quick note here about terminology. Based on this talk, and also for some other writing about AI I was doing, I realized I could have been more precise here with my words. I was using AI here to refer to generative AI and LLMs, which is how many people are using the term AI these days.

But technically, AI is the broadest umbrella term in this area. The use of the term artificial intelligence goes back decades and refers to any computer system or machine designed to mimic human-like intelligence, reasoning, problem-solving, or decision-making. Then underneath the general AI umbrella, you have machine learning, and under the machine learning subcategory, you have generative AI, and under generative AI, you have LLMs, which are a specific type of generative AI based on human language.

But many people are using the term AI these days to refer to the modern generative AI and LLMs And I think this can make it a bit hard to understand the terminology in this space, so I wanted to just call that out a little bit. Okay, back to the talk.

Luke Geel: And then there is one piece I haven’t talked much about, um, and that’s reinforcement learning piece.

This is where you, um, would reward the model when it behaves correctly, and then whatever the opposite of reward is when- Punish it … it, it performs poor. Punish it, yeah, um, when it performs poorly. Um, so- Whip it. Exactly, yeah, whip it. The nice thing about my project with the data was the data’s out there, right?

You have Husker Casino Live, and they have hundreds of hours. You have World Series of Poker, PokerGo, y- you got tons of data. And then, well, you, you have tons of data f- for many other potential projects a- a- and industries, but for poker specifically is w- with these live streams, you can see the players’ cards, so you know specifically what their hand strength was.

Now, y- you still kind of miss that gap between what their hand is and what they perceive it, but you know for sure what their hand is because it, it, it’s visible in the video. So what you can do now is something called, um, reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. This popped up, uh, like, like a year ago.

It seems like it’s one of the areas of, of AI that people are exploring right now. With reinforcement learning, let me try to give some, some easy example. We’ll, we’ll take math. It, it’s fairly easy to build some model that’s really good at math because you can kind of correct it instantly, right? If, if you, if you have a bunch of math problems and you give it to an AI, and the AI gives you answers, you can just say like, “Hey, the, the answer’s wrong,” right?

That’s a fact. “That answer’s correct,” that’s a fact. And you can just keep doing that over and over and over again. But for something like, um-

Zach Elwood: More amorphous …

Luke Geel: yeah, like, like language, if I asked, if I said, “Hey,” um, I’ll, I’ll use a, a basic example of people, people will use ChatGPT for. If I say, “Hey, write me a poem about a pirate,” there’s no right answer, right?

Sure, y- you could tell it if, if it gives you an output that isn’t a poem and/or doesn’t contain pirates, you can say that’s wrong, right? But there’s no, like, verifiably correct answer. But with poker, that does exist because you have that data. You know, oh, hey, this person has pocket aces pre-flop. That’s definitely a super strong hand.

We know that for sure. That’s a verifiable fact. So when you have these verifiable facts, that’s the same thing as a verifiable reward. So now you’re able to train these models using this training technique of, of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, and that greatly speeds up the process, um, and greatly im- improves accuracy.

But you can only do that if you actually have that data. If you didn’t have that data, you can’t really do that.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Are you, uh, can you say, uh, I mean, what’s your, what’s been your experience with like, okay, it’s trained on this player. Now let’s do some predictions for new footage. Like what kind of accuracy…

I assume you’re like mostly focusing on like them making Decent bets? Like, is that- if that’s right, what’s been your-

Luke Geel: It’s- …

Zach Elwood: accuracy on, on the reads?

Luke Geel: So it’s not focusing specifically on, like, big decision points or like, “Hey, this person bet. Are they bluffing?” It’s

Zach Elwood: So it’s like, it’s like it’s, it’s making a running, like, commentary- Running prediction

as- Exactly … as the footage is going through.

Luke Geel: Yes, 100%.

Zach Elwood: Um- Even, even if it’s, you know … So I, I would imagine it’s, like, depending on the spot, depending on the player, it has a high variety of, like-

Luke Geel: Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: But I get… Yeah, what’s, what’s your, what’s been your experience with, like, is it more accurate in some spots?

You know, what-

Luke Geel: Sure, absolutely … what are those spots

Zach Elwood: like? Yeah.

Luke Geel: It’ll be, I mean, it’s, it’ll be more accurate per person, like the accuracy will change per person. Um, you know, like how much data there is, um, or whatnot. But, like, some spots that I hadn’t considered is, um, or until I really thought about it and I was like, “Oh, this makes total sense,” is, um, if someone’s on a draw and then the next card comes out, did they hit their draw or not?

You can, you can detect a lot of behavioral patterns, um, if you have enough footage of, hey, this person was on a fl- w- was drawing to, you know, a flush, um, 20 times, and, you know, five times they made it, 15 times they didn’t. Let’s look at the difference of behavior for those specific spots. Um, so like s- situations like that, or situations where, um

This wouldn’t be helpful in game, because l- let’s say we’re playing against each other, and I, I make a bet, and now the action’s on you. And let’s say w- we’re at the river. I don’t really, it doesn’t really matter to me what your tells are because I already made the bet, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Luke Geel: Um, but there’s, there’s still a lot of information to be gained by studying you at that spot, because if, let’s say there’s two scenarios.

One scenario, you have a great hand, so you just immediately call. The other scenario is you wait a- y- you think a lot because you don’t have a great hand. What you do then can be representative of what you will do in other spots. Um, however, that’s another thing to consider is how does a person’s behavior change when their action could end the hand, like if we’re on the river and I go all in- Right,

Zach Elwood: action-ending decision

Luke Geel: yeah, action-ending. You, you might be like, okay, right, if I call him out, it doesn’t matter if I give away any tells- Right … because the hand’s pretty much over, right? Yeah, that’s where you

Zach Elwood: see- So

Luke Geel: like you need to be able to account

Zach Elwood: for that as well … yeah, you see those players, it doesn’t matter what they do, so they’re just, like, talking or it’s obvious they have a decision ’cause it doesn’t matter what they do, right?

Luke Geel: Exactly, yeah. Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Well, yeah, it just seem, uh, yeah, that, that’s what gets me is like the trying to do it programmatically seems so tough because there just i- is such this wide range of different spots, right? Like that you, you- Mm-hmm … you just talked about one, and then, you know, there’s also the fact that, like, the way they edit the footage can be very, uh, frustrating- Mm-hmm

at least to me, where it’s like the most important behavior can be, like, after somebody makes a significant bet, but then they, like, immediately cut away usually after- Yeah … the person bets to, like, the person who’s thinking, which to me is, like, completely how, not how I would edit a, uh, or produce a- poker game, but just to say there can be, you know, and, and that’s like an artifact of the editing and the production.

Theoretically, if you just had like one shot of one player throughout, you know, all hands- Mm-hmm … you would solve that. But just to say there’s all these, um, different situations and the, the cha- the programmatic challenge just seems really hard to me in terms of like getting the, getting the machine to recognize and separate all those different areas.

Luke Geel: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: But yeah. Anyway, that’s what, that’s what strikes me. Mm-hmm. And sorry if you, if you’ve answered it, but I, I think you said something on one interview where you, you, you had seen it be quite accurate in some situations. Can you talk a little bit about the, the accuracy? Have you– D- d- are you willing to talk numbers like that?

Like, we fed it in this data and it was like this accurate in these spots kind of thing?

Luke Geel: Sure. Um, let me think. I, I don’t love… Like, it was– Well, um, you said it was accurate in these spots. Um- Or however you would

Zach Elwood: word it.

Luke Geel: Sure. Okay. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Um, so it was accurate when the person it was focused on, uh, there was a lot of data, they weren’t that good, and, you know, there was a lot of variability.

Um, I, I say they weren’t that good because a lot of the best players will work to hide their tells, um, and then that makes it harder for the AI. So it worked well when it was easy. Um, and I, I guess a lot of people m- might say, “Oh, well, you know, I mean, you’re cherry-picking the, the data. You can’t just give it some random person and, you know, i- is it gonna be as accurate on, uh, on some, some random person?”

Um, and the, the answer is no. The answer is, um, is, is it better than the average human a- a- at finding tells? Yeah. Is it better than you? Probably not. Um, like, like y- you’re a professional a- a- at finding tells. You might be like one of the biggest ones, um, w- with, with your books. So

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I see, I see what you’re saying.

I gue- I guess, uh, but I, I guess the way to prove it, right, like to show something, because, you know, I, I was telling you, it’s like there’s so little, it, it, there, there’s very little done in, in the space of like interpreting- Mm-hmm … pr- and predicting nonverbal behavior. It’s very hard to find those correlations.

So if you could even put together something where it’s like, here was the data we used, and then we fed in this, this other new footage of this same player to see if it could predict it. And if you could show like even a s- even a, if you could show even slightly above average on, on, you know, whatever spots, that would be- Mm-hmm

really meaningful and like people would be really impressed by that, because that, that would show like … And, and it wouldn’t be surprising to me that you’d be able to do that, ’cause it’s like for reasons we’ve discussed, like I, you know, that there are, I think, I believe there are noticeable patterns, especially when we’re talking, you know, for specific players.

But I, I, I’m just thinking about how you can like show the impressiveness of it-

Luke Geel: Sure …

Zach Elwood: where it’s like even if- Um … you were able to constrain it to like feed in all these spots of like this player making river bets, and then we’re gonna feed in some, you know, it’s gonna make its model, and then you’re gonna feed in more spots of river bets from the same player, like that, that would be really cool, ’cause I think you would see some very cool things.

But I, I was just thinking of ways that you could make that impressive- Sure … in a, in like an objective way to people. Yeah.

Luke Geel: I think what I would do is, you know, I, I, I’d give it the footage and tell it, you know, “Go, go find this person’s tells.” And then whatever tell it was most confident in, I would find that throughout the footage and say, “Hey, it, it noticed this tell.

Here’s where these tells occurred. Notice how they always occurred when the person had a very strong hand or a very weak hand.” I think that’s how I would go about, um, proving its, its, um, accuracy.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, and then getting it to, to make reads of new footage, uh, with those things, right?

Luke Geel: Oh, yeah. That, that’s true, and then give it footage it hasn’t seen-

Zach Elwood: Yeah

Luke Geel: see if it has identified those tells, and then say, “Oh, look, it also did, you know, it, it, it, it matched up with, with a, um-“

Zach Elwood: Yeah. That’s where I think like you could set up that, you know, thing to really show even just the, the proof of concept of like, hey, here’s some objective data. Like we did this, then we did this, and then we fed in the new footage, and like you can see, you know, that it did something impressive.

Anyway, that’s what I was thinking, ’cause I mean, my, my and other people’s initial reaction were like, “Hey, what can it do?” And it’d be cool to see the, you know, point by point thing of how it did something. Yeah. Uh, that’s what occurs to me anyway, for, for like making that public. I know you’re, uh, I know you started a new job recently.

Do you have, um, do you have time to, to work on this more? Is it kind of a side project for now that you’re gonna return to later or-

Luke Geel: Uh, I mean, it, it was always a side project a- a- and then I, I was thinking, “Oh, do I try to do this, you know, full time? Like, can I try to reach out to poker players and see if they would pay me to do it?”

Mm. But then th- this new company, um, I mean, they essentially… It was, it was essentially l- like an acqui-hire. Um, they hired me, and then they said, “Hey, would you, w- would you be willing to, um, bring over your, your poker project to our company?” And I said, “Sure.”

Zach Elwood: Um- Oh, interesting. … because…

Luke Geel: Yeah. Uh, because they’re doing, like, relatively similar work.

It, it’s not super similar because it, it’s just audio and it’s not poker. Um, but, but, but the, the big concepts are the same. Um, so I don’t plan on, on continuing this project much, if at all, but I, I will be doing similar work w- with my new company.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Are you able to say what the company is, or would you rather not say?

Luke Geel: Sure, yeah. I’m, I’m happy to say. Um, so the company’s called Unveer.

Zach Elwood: How do you spell that?

Luke Geel: U-N-V-E-E-R. So r- right now what we’re doing is we’re setting up a legal intake call center because there, there’s a, there’s a gap in, in the market with, um, legal intake call centers. They’re, they’re not that great.

There’s tons of room for improvement. Um, some of those improvements being, like, AI and automation to improve efficiency, improve conversion rates, et cetera, et cetera. Um, so th- that, that’s kind of o- one part of this company. R- my part there a- and, and right now is, is building those AI tools and AI automations for, um, those legal intake call centers that, that, that we’re setting up.

And then part two is since we own the legal intake call centers, we also own all of the data that comes out from those, um, that data being in the form of recorded phone calls between leads/potential clients and our intake specialists. Um, like the, the call center agents who work on behalf of these law firms, um, their goal is to, like, qualify the, the, the leads to make sure that they– that the, the lawyers are able to represent them.

Like i- if it’s an auto accident, it, it… Did this person have the accident, like, in, in the same state? Um, to, to make sure that these lawyers are able to represent them.

Sarah Herring (pokerorg): Hmm.

Luke Geel: The, the idea there is if we get enough of that data, we could do something similar for what I did w- with my AI tells model. Um, and now w- we could do, um, like a, a, an AI model specifically for legal intake call centers to, um, understand, like i- if a lead is on the phone and they say, “Hey, I need to talk to my wife before I, I make any big decision.”

Zach Elwood: Let’s say we have a h- Yeah, you’re

Luke Geel: gonna make

Zach Elwood: that sale. Yeah. It’s the Glengarry Glen Ross tell or something.

Luke Geel: Yeah. That’s true, but the whole point is, like, i- if, if someone says, “Hey, I need to speak to my wife before I, I can make the sale,” there’ll always be something that you c- you can always say something after that.

You can always say like- Right. Right. There,

Zach Elwood: there’s some strategy that you could decide

Luke Geel: on.

Zach Elwood: There’s some- Yeah. Yeah …

Luke Geel: there’s some strategy. Yeah. I don’t know, coming from like the, the, the game theory poker side of things and, and chess, I think chess might be more applicable. One of the things that you could say will always be the best.

There’s always like one best thing, one most persuasive thing you could say. So with the data that we have, we can li- we can ingest all of these calls and at any of those like decision points where someone says, “Hey, I need to speak to my wife before,” sometimes- See what works … what the call center agents will say will influence other person’s decision, and now they no longer need to speak to their wife.

So that way then we can train these, uh, our, our new AI models to be, um, as persuasive as possible for, so we can essentially train these persuasion models. But in order to best come up with these persuasion models, the first step is to understand what people actually mean or how, how they actually feel.

And it, it’s a little harder i-i-in scenarios like, um, like these phone calls and also in poker because, um, these people aren’t… It’s not that they’re necessarily trying to hide. Well, in, in poker you’re trying to hide, you know, how you’re actually feeling. You don’t want everybody to know, oh, y- you have a really strong hand.

W-with, with sales, whove- whoever’s being sold, they’re not nec- they, they might not want to say like, “Oh, you know, I love that. I’m definitely willing to pay full price.” They might wanna say, “Oh, you know, can we negotiate a little bit?” Um, so you have to understand someone’s true intentions. Right. It’s a very, it’s a

Zach Elwood: very different environment.

Yeah.

Luke Geel: Very different environment. And yeah. The

Zach Elwood: domains can be very d- different, yeah.

Luke Geel: Domains can be different. Everybody’s different, um- The data from our call centers will unlock the ability for us to train, um, our new models. Um, and then, you know, it’s– l-legal intake is, is, is just the first step. Um, w-we’re starting here because we know that there’s a hole in the market.

Um, we have a, a, a good product. We’re, we’re, you know, going live with, with, with users. That’s all good. Um, and then afterwards, once we have the data, we can start training these models, deploying them, getting more data. Then we can start expanding to not just, you know, c- sales call centers, but we can do, like, medical intake.

We can do, um, real estate, anything where it’s helpful to really understand how a person’s truly feeling.

Zach Elwood: 911 call analysis or something. I don’t know. Yeah. Things help… Any, any place, anything involving, like, helping or service, servicing other people or

Luke Geel: something. That’s true. Yeah. 911, suicide hotline, um, anything where, where, um, you’re listening to people and, and you’re trying to understand either, like, you know, h-how can I persuade them to do something?

Now- Yeah … whether that’s buy an item or, um- Interesting … how can I, like, persuade someone to hire me for a job, or how can I persuade someone to accept a job? Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, there’s a, um… I don’t know if you’ve read, like, conversation analysis as it’s called. Like, you might really enjoy reading, like, um, ’cause I interviewed Liz Stoko, who wrote this book on conversation analysis, and it was all about those kinds of things, like- Oh

finding things like little turns of phrase that cr- made people do much more likely to do or not do something else just based on, like, the way things were, like, slightly changed in the wording. But you might, you might really like that. It reminds me of that. It’s basically like a programmatic form of, like, analyzing conversations and finding, like, patterns in the conversations.

Yeah.

Luke Geel: Oh, interesting. Yeah. I’ll have to check that out. Thank you.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you’d like that. Yeah. Um, this has been great, Luke. Very interesting, and thanks for taking the time to

Luke Geel: explain- Oh, of course …

Zach Elwood: what you’ve been working on.

Luke Geel: Yeah, thanks for having me. It was a, it was an absolute honor, uh, appearing on your podcast, so thank you very much.

Zach Elwood: That was a talk with Luke Geel. If you wanna keep up with his work, you can follow him on LinkedIn. This has been the “People Who Read People” podcast with me, Zach Elwood. I’m also the author of some Poker Tells books, which you can learn about at readingpokertells.com. Thanks for listening. Music by Small Skies.

Categories
podcast

He wrote a book to help police read body language—then changed his mind

Can trying to read people’s body language make investigators worse at finding the truth? Veteran interrogator and trainer Stan B. Walters, known as “the Lie Guy” (thelieguy.com) and author of “Principles of Kinesic Interview and Interrogation,” explains why he moved away from the nonverbal behavior ideas he once taught—and why he now focuses on listening to what people say. We discuss his and others’ research on telling lies from truth in real criminal interrogations, why bad ideas about nonverbal behavior and aggressive interviewing tactics persist in police training, and how investigators can accidentally feed suspects information that “contaminates” the interview and makes their job harder. Stan shares stories of an interview that unexpectedly uncovered a serial killer and a murder-attempt survivor whose important detail was missed because nobody asked the right questions. We explore what actually matters when listening to people: looking for gaps in people’s stories, thinking about how logical and verifiable their stories are, and more.

Show clarifications:

A transcript and other related resources are farther down below.

Episode links:

Resources related to or mentioned in this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts are generated automatically and will contain errors)

Stan Walters: I was interviewing a guy. He’s a, he was a rapist up in Baton Rouge. They asked me to come in. It was on cr- New Year’s holidays. Said, “Sure, I’ll come up.” I was in Kentucky. And all I was talking to him about was one victim who tried, who had escaped from him… I hit a spot about his relationship with, with women, and his head dropped, and he put his hands in his face. I said, “He’s– Oh, something’s coming. Tell me what happened, Danny.” He gave up a 16-year-old unsolved homicide in Texas that nobody knew he was connected to. When I got done, when they finished with him, he had 16 homicides over 16 years. He was a serial killer. They executed him in Texas about eight years ago Say, beautiful thing, I didn’t have anything to contaminate him with.

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with Stan B. Walters. Stan has more than 40 years experience in criminal investigation and interrogation areas, and he’s also done research into nonverbal and verbal behavior at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Stan goes by the nickname “the Lie Guy” and you can learn about him at his site thelieguy.com. 

I’m Zach Elwood and the host of the People Who Read People podcast, which can you can learn more about at behavior-podcast.com. You can also learn about my poker tells books and videos at readingpokertells.com. I got interested in talking to Stan because I stumbled across a book of his from 2003, a second edition of a book, actually, that was titled Principles of Kinesic Interview and Interrogation. 

I’ll read a little bit from that book’s description:

How do you interpret a person’s behavior during their interview? Some people say it’s an innate quality that can’t be taught. But anyone who’s read Stan Walters’ Principles of Kinesic Interview and Interrogation knows that is FALSE. The overwhelming success of the first edition and the numerous success stories credited to the book prove that the art of kinesic interview, or behavioral analysis, is indeed learnable, and Walters shows you how to master it.

It says that what’s new in this edition is, amongst other things: 

· 50% more high quality photos depicting various nonverbal symptoms

And just a note that if you’re listening to this on audio platforms, this episode is also on youtube and includes video, and I’m right now going to be showing some pictures from the book. I’ll just flip to a few pages at random here. 

So here we’ve got a, uh, a picture of a guy picking his hands. It says, “This subject is showing general stress behavior as he picks at his fingers and fingernails during his interview.” Turn to another page here. Got a picture of a woman touching her face. It says, “Subject showing negation behavior of covering the face by playing with her nose.” A similar picture on the other page, “Negation behavior by a subject who is pinching his nose between his fingers.” Here’s a woman of a– a picture of a woman. It says, “A female subject exhibiting the stress behavior of lip licking, usually due to a dry mouth, but it can also be a stalling behavior. Notice the subject smiling at the same time.” Image below that one says, “Subject showing the results of stress by licking his lips.” Flip to another one here. There’s one of a guy with a hand on his face. It says, “This subject is blocking the mouth in a negation behavior by playing with his mustache.” Another picture says, “Negation behavior by subject who is partially covering the mouth with his hand.” Another image says, “This subject is holding his bottom lip in his hand Another one says, “Aggressive hard eye contact by subject. Notice the hand also blocking the mouth.” Another one says, “Male subject demonstrating aggressive hard eyes. Notice the head position leaning away from the interviewer in an aversion behavior.” This one says, “Male subject breaking eye contact by looking down at his fingers as he plays with them.” This one says, “Subject showing negation behavior by covering his entire face, including the eyes, nose, and mouth.” Anyway, um, you get the idea there.

Now the book also includes other things besides a focus on nonverbal behavior; it actually has some interesting and I think accurate stuff on verbal content patterns, but I was just focusing here on the nonverbal behavior section.

So I got curious to talk to Stan about this book, and about his views on nonverbal behavior and the practical use of it in high-stakes, real-world settings. I didn’t actually know what Stan’s current views on nonverbal behavior were; as you’ll hear, his views on that subject have changed a whole lot. But I didn’t know that when I reached out to him. I’ve mostly these days been doing interviews as research for a book I’m working on, which will be titled Read People For Real, and as part of that I’m up for talking to anyone, and learning about their points of views, no matter if I agree with everything they say, or not. Basically I’m just trying to delve into certain areas I’m curious about and where I’m trying to understand why people think what they do. And in this case what drew me to Stan was on the topic of: why do so many law enforcement practitioners believe that nonverbal behavior is so meaningful and useful in interrogation and investigative settings? Why do they believe those things despite what the research and evidence tells us about the practical value of nonverbal behavior in the area of deception?

Stan has a long career, and again if you want to learn about him, go to his site thelieguy.com, but I’ll read a few things that he mentions on this site:

40+ Years — Investigative interviewing and interrogation experience

50,000+ Hours — Presenting investigative interview skills

1,500+ — Videotaped offender and detainee interviews in 40 correctional institutions

Stan’s instruction has supported counterintelligence and field operations during the Gulf War and other high-stakes deployments, including advanced behavioral skills development for military and security personnel preparing for real-world operations in hostile environments.

Peer-Reviewed Research — Published research and presentations to the American Psychological Association.

For the entry for this episode on my site behavior-podcast.com I’ll include some links to the research and some of the other resources Stan mentions in our talk. 

Okay here’s the talk with Stan B. Walters…

Zach Elwood: Hi, Stan. Thanks for joining me.

Stan Walters: Thanks for inviting me. Looking forward to our conversation.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, me too. Thank you. So I was curious, you know, I first learned of you when I found this, uh, Kinesic Interviewing book that you had written. Do you wanna talk a little bit about how you came to write that book and what your interest was in that area?

Stan Walters: That was when we were still doing hieroglyphics, right? That’s been so long ago, Zach. And that, that, that was the first thing that would caught my attention was your interest in that text. Is it with the red cover or the black cover?

Zach Elwood: I think it was a- You remember

Stan Walters: offhand?

Zach Elwood: I think it was a red cover.

Stan Walters: Red cover.

Okay, that’s the second one.

Zach Elwood: Okay.

Stan Walters: That was just at the beginning of my transformation away from a lot of the body language materials. I had– was involved in some research at John Jay College in New York with Dr. Martha Davis and some folks with the State Department, Defense Department, and the university there.

And that’s where the school, Levinov– Burton Levinov School of Modern Dance Studies, and they started looking at body language in terms of therapy and treatment, psychotherapy and so forth, for the therapist. So that’s where their interest was, and they came up with some of the funding. Martha was one of the profilers for NYPD.

We had to connect one of the sergeants there who was trained in profiling. That’s where the research came. I’d already started having some reservations about body language because– and some of the thoughts that you had were just the same parallel thoughts that I had, you know Is this just somebody stressed out because of the interview or the situation, or is this the victim who’s reliving it, or is it deception?

And I said, “You know, if it’s that many variables, then we’re losing our objective bias if we try to pick one or the other,” ’cause then we go in with a mindset. You know, if you think you’re gonna see a chicken, you’re gonna see a chicken, you know?

Zach Elwood: Right. Confirmation

Stan Walters: bias. And I was really worried about that.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: And some of our first numbers that came out… And now the book was right in between that-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Stan Walters: segment. It was written just a little bit before our data came out.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Was that, like, early 2000s, somewhere

Stan Walters: around there? That’d be really good, right, right. Yeah, yeah. And I think it finally, if I’m… You might look at the copyright date.

I think it was 2001, I think is when it came out.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: Something along that line. We started our research in, like, ’97- Hmm … ’98. So I’d already pared back some of the body language.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: One of the things that was interesting, and I, I think you picked up on one of your conversations with one of your other guests, reading body language is very labor intensive.

And if you think of the mi- you know, when people talk about a one-track mind- Sure … there’s a lot to that. And what we found, we had five people that watched… Now, we took live cases, which is the first this had been done in research. I’d already been doing visits to prisons, doing proof of concept, interviewing inmates, and videotaping them.

Dr. Davis, Martha Davis, liked that idea, and so other studies in deception had been college students. You know, “Come tomorrow morning, we’ll pay you 50 bucks. Lie, don’t get caught.” You know? There’s no jeopardy in that. So, uh, she worked with NYPD and Dr. and Ray Pierce, and she got 37, if I remember, videotaped interrogations of live cases.

Robbery, rape, murder, attempted murder, et cetera, burglary, all recorded. We interviewed the prosecutors, interviewed the detectives, looked at the forensics. So if a guy was asked in the interview, for example, “What’d you do with the gun?” He said, “I

Zach Elwood: threw

Stan Walters: it on the roof,” let’s say. We could prove through forensics that was a lie or the truth.

So we had ground truth or deception markers. Martha trained the body language people, I trained the speech people. So the body language people listened or watched silent tape, and they cataloged answers by crossing arms and legs, you know, the whole repertoire, right? My folks were looking at memory, uh, lapses and other verbal cues and repeating questions, that type of stuff.

Yeah. You know, trust me, believe that stuff, right?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And the, the verbal people won out every time.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: They scored higher.

Zach Elwood: I’d imagine.

Stan Walters: This interesting thing that I was talk- like with the, the, the mindset, the launch, uh, one train of thought, it only took, for every two minutes of tape, it took an hour combined time for the observers to analyze it all.

It took the body language people 45 minutes of work. The speech people only took 15 minutes, and of those two, the speech people scored higher every time than the body language people did.

Zach Elwood: Just a quick edit here. I’m cutting out a little bit of Stan’s explanation just due to wanting to make it more explicitly clear and adding some context. Stan here talked about the findings in a 2006 research paper, which was titled “Judging the Credibility of Criminal Suspect Statements: Does Mode of Presentation Matter?” and which he worked on with his colleagues Martha Davis and Keith Marcus. That study found that the people examining the audio-only interviews got like 62% accuracy compared to like 55% accuracy for those studying both the video and the audio. Another kind of interesting finding that I saw when reading that study was that the people who only read cleaned-up transcripts, which removed uhs and ums and verbal stumbles and such, did like 10% worse at judging truth from lies than those who could hear the actual audio. Again, though, these are all small numbers and deviations and there can be a lot of variance in these studies, but those were just a couple things that stood out as interesting. Back to the talk. 

Stan Walters: So that’s where I’m going, “Okay, so my gut instinct’s tell- telling me something right here.” So I started sidetracking a lot of the verbal stuff, and it was barely some marginal-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Stan Walters: that was, that would barely make it in, 52, 54%.

So it’s still not much better than a flip of a coin.

Zach Elwood: And, and you were finding that when you did that research that the people looking at only the body language type stuff were still around that- Right … like 55% kind of marker, right? Mm-hmm. Which is what- Yeah … a lot of the research shows for non-verbal deception detection.

Yeah.

Stan Walters: Yeah. And it still is now. If you, if you’ve read, uh, Bella DePaulo-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Stan Walters: and, and she would be somebody good to talk to. Done a lot of body language research. She did a meta-analysis that had 24,683 something samples. Massive, massive meta study. Average on body language was no better than 52%.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And some of these were self-proclaimed experts who had done it a lot.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Stan Walters: Yeah. So I’m sit and think, “Okay, so we’re killing ourselves here.” And I, as I was working cases, I was beginning to realize there was more value in hearing than watching.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: Now, parallel to this, you know there’s a very accusatory style of interview.

You know, we confront the person, “You’re a liar, we know about… We know what happened,” et cetera. Then there’s a narrative basis form that sort of come out of Giesie Gudjonsson around the sa- and Aldert Vrij around about ’82, ’84, about the same period of time, that those interviews produced a lot of anxiety, and there was less information.

The admission and confession rate was lower, and there was a higher risk of contaminated and false confession statements with that accusatory style interview. So in that, that red book, I just shifted to a narrative form that Gudjonsson would talk about.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: Uh, orientation, they had different labels.

Orientation, narration, cross-examination, resolution. So let’s, let’s pretend for your witness stand, okay? Uh, “Your Honor, this is Joe Smerbler. He’s an expert in arson investigation, et cetera.” You introduce, that’s the orientation. So you, like lawyers, you enact with the jury and say, “We appreciate you coming.”

You develop the e- the ethos, the connection. ‘Cause if you mistreat people, you know, you’re not gonna get much help out of it, right? Then the attorney would say to you on, on the stand, “Mr. Walters, can you tell us what happened on June 2nd when you were on patrol?” That’s a narrative. Instead of saying, “Mr.

Walters, is it true on June 2nd you’re at the corner of Walk and Don’t Walk at 3:00 AM, you saw a white 1969 Ford Econoline van traveling eastbound in the westbound lane, lights off, swerving suddenly, sideswiped several vehicles, crashed through the median, and ran through the front window of Best Buy?”

Zach Elwood: Yeah, leading.

Stan Walters: The counsel’s gonna object-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Stan Walters: testifying for the witness.

Zach Elwood: Yeah

Stan Walters: So it became apparent to me that accusatory approach was contaminating a lot of statements, and that drew my interest. About that time was our false confession cases, that Michael Crowe, for example, was one of the first ones when DNA started being used.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Stan Walters: And so I was at that apex where all this data’s coming in, said, “Boy, we have been really missing it.”

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And I’ve, uh, I’ve col- I’ve seen what you’ve done. You’ve probably got a stack of, of research papers you’ve read through and-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, trying to make sense of it. Yeah …

Stan Walters: you know, when the ball game is at halftime and the score is crummy, you start reading research papers.

Yeah. I have like… I counted the other day, I have, like, 800 papers that I’ve collected and read and used for reference in my bibliography when I teach now.

Zach Elwood: Well, yeah, you’re an interesting guy to talk to because I feel like there’s few people that talk openly about that transition from, like, the, the heavy body language focus- Mm-hmm

back, you know, which was common back then, you know. We- Sure … a- a- and to the, to the modern, uh, you know, era where it’s less emphasized and, and more criti- criticized. So it’s really interesting and, like, yeah, even in that book of yours, the, ’cause I think I had, like you said, the second edition. Right. I could, I could tell you massively de-emphasized the body language.

It was in there, but it was still, like, you led with what people were talking about, and then you- Right … went into the body language. So even that alone was interesting to me because I, from the title I had, I had imagined it was mostly- Sure … body language because of the kinesic thing. Mm-hmm. And I was like, “Oh, he’s, he’s really de-emphasizing it.”

So I not- I, I definitely noticed that and I thought it was interesting. So hearing you tell the backstory w- is interesting, yeah. Uh-

Stan Walters: So I’ve been on the, kinda like this journey, just as you have, and it’s what’s ex- excited me about seeing your journey as you’re studying and reading some of your thoughts.

You’re headed that same, along that same parallel path where I am- Mm-hmm … and have been. Uh- Mm-hmm. For sure … of course, Ekman came along with microexpressions, which was interesting But there was never any follow-up.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I’m cur- well, that’s a whole bucket of worms ’cause yeah, I haven’t seen any I, I’ve seen evidence against the microexpressions stuff.

I don’t, I don’t believe there’s much there, especially, I mean, especially if we’re talking the idea that, you know, for deception detection. I, you know, it seems like there’s- Yeah … good evidence against it being useful for that, but yeah.

Stan Walters: Yeah. You know, you know when that really first jumped out? That’s when, uh, Susan Smith had driven her car into a lake with the kids, and everybody immediately was using microexpressions, watching her cry but not cry, et cetera, and her husband.

That was right in the cusp of that case, and Gary Condit was right along in that same time also.

Zach Elwood: Right. It’s like, I actually was just watching the show Lie To Me yesterday as part of research. Uh-huh. And they, they had used that Susan S- they, you know, th- there’s a few cases that people love to use to try to support some of these ideas, which to me is like, getting back to what you started talking about, it’s like, sure, you can find a few interesting things in the body language and facial expression things, but like, even for those cases, it’s like, what’s so much more important is what they’re actually saying, right?

It’s like Yeah. Uh, so yeah, to your point, and, and I think you, I think I read this in your book too, it’s like, I’m pretty sure it was in your book, where, where you emphasize, hey, these things take a really long time to analyze, you know, the facial expression and body language stuff, to like parse what’s going on with it, and then to add to it, it’s like much, you know, obviously much less, uh, meaningful than what people say.

So it’s like you’re, you’re focusing on the less important thing, and it’s taking more mental effort to even focus on that thing too, right? So y- it’s not a good combo in that sense. Yeah. Yeah.

Stan Walters: Well, and then- ‘Cause I’m excited for your growth pattern. I’m seeing it where you’re paralleling where I got, got to where I am now.

The idea of what’s some of the problems with false confessions, uh, there was a l- a law enforcement interview training company, and several, more than two handfuls of their students have told me that in that class they tell them there was no such thing as a false confession. An innocent person would never confess, and if they did, it’s their fault or they’re guilty of something else.

Innocence Project did a study t- and I, I don’t, I … The, think the number’s around this, 240, 270 cases of wrongful conviction where there was a false confession that DNA proved that person was innocent. Peer-reviewed science, and yet a law enforcement company training law enforcement agencies still today-

Zach Elwood: Still today

Stan Walters: today, and says there is no such thing as a false confession.

Zach Elwood: I guess you don’t wanna say who they are. We don’t wanna, uh-

Stan Walters: No, I wanna keep my house. But we found there’s three factors that you’re fitting with. There’s first confirmation bias, and whether I’m thinking it’s the witness or the victim or the suspect, and body language feeds that bias ’cause we misread.

Once we think, “Aha, I know you’re lying because you covered your mouth or crossed your arms or looked up to the right or left,” or whatever, right? We decide, well, he’s got to be guilty. Well, that creates a bias in the mind of the interviewer.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: Of those 200 and odd cases in that study, confirmation bias was demonstrated in 100% of the cases- Hmm

by the interviewer.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: The next thing was, uh, contamination. So an accusatory interview, “We know you did this. We know you moved the body. We know that, uh, we’ve got you on videotape,” and feeding facts. I’ve c- consulted on a case, a death penalty case on the molestation of a child down here in Florida, and was asked by the defense to look at the reliability, that’s the term I use now, how reliable is his statement?

The detective told him, “Your two daughters have told us very similar stories, and they prob- they didn’t talk to each other.” I’m thinking, “That’s BS.” “And we’re gonna believe them until you prove your innocence otherwise. Now, here’s the CPS investigator. She’s gonna tell you everything the girls said you did.”

They tell him all the facts before they ask him what happened.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: So they’ve contaminated him.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: Then you have things like, “Would you just like to write, uh, an apology letter? You didn’t mean to hurt her. It was an accident.” So minimizing. So contamination or c- confirmation bias fed by body language or preconception bias.

Then we contaminate the subject and we hear it back and we think, “Ah, I got him.” Worked a murder case where a child was killed, and all the boyfriend said was, because he was watching the child when she died, he was asleep when she died. He said, “I feel responsible.” The detective took that as a confession, but he got no facts of…

He’d been living with the mother of the victim three weeks. Autopsy demonstrated the injuries were three months old, blunt force trauma.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: They convicted the guy

Zach Elwood: Right

Stan Walters: So you see the kind of contamination in it with… Then the third piece is that minimizing, which triples that risk. So those three factors are very common in accusatory type of interviews.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. So

Stan Walters: that’s where the path led me with the body language and f- sticking with the speech. So you had some thoughts, so let’s hear.

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah, I got so many. It’s hard to- … rank them all. Um, yeah, I- Great … I mean, there’s, there’s a lot to talk about there. I, I wanna pivot to, uh- Sure … why, why I initially wanted to talk to you.

One of the reasons- Okay … I initially wanted to talk to you was I thought you would have good insight into why, uh, law enforcement and other practitioners, some people and some practitioners can really believe that there is a lot of use and efficacy from non-verbal behavior. And I’ll, I’ll give my thought, uh, one of my- Yeah

one of my thoughts and see what you think of it. In Tim Levine’s work, uh, I don’t know if, you know, if you read his work, he, he’s a deception detection and behavior researcher, and he wrote this great book, Duped, and I’ve had him on the podcast a few times. He gives an overview of the deception detection research in the- Uh-huh

non-verbal behavior area. But one of his, uh, one of his theories which I think is quite, uh, sound, his, hi- his takeaway is that the, like the 55% reliability that you find in a lot of- Mm-hmm … the non-verbal, uh, deception detection research, after put- putting a lot of work into it, he, he found that that’s due…

It could be seen to be due to some people that could be termed bad liars. Like, there’s some percentage- Oh, yeah … a small percentage of people that just act really in stereotypically anxious, nervous ways- Mm … when they’re lying, right? So those are the people that kind of take it from a kind of a chance level to more of a- Uh-huh

55% or little bit above level sometimes. Okay. You know, sometimes a good amount more, depending on the study or whatever. That m- these, these so-called bad liars might account for some of that above average thing, which I think is a really good theory because it’s not, you know, we’re talking about people that do these stereotypically things that many people would view as guilty and, and deceptive.

Right. And even though other people, other innocent people, not deceptive people, do some of those things, too, these people are just triggering our instinct to, you know, many people’s instinct to be like, “Oh, they seem nervous,” right? And so- … they’re, they’re triggering that, that, that, that instinct that many of us have about- About-

how liars look- Yeah … right? And, and, and a lot of t- you know, and so I think there is something interesting there where it’s like in the law enforcement domain, I think there probably are, uh, a good amount of bad liars in the sense that like- You know, and I, I think there’s even theoretically something that could be studied where it’s like there might be something about the, uh, you know, these cr- the, the criminal in- interrogation and interview setting that where bad liars, so-called bad liars, are over-represented because, you know, if you know that you’re screwed basically from the evidence, maybe you don’t care about giving away that you’re anxious in a w- in a way that comes across as very suspicious to me, right?

So that’s, that’s just a thing, a, a rabbit hole I was going down because I think, you know, law enforcement practitioners are… They’re, they’re not stupid. There’s a reason that many people would say like, “I found this valuable,” right? And I think that’s worth looking into is like why they say that. And I, I think in talking to law enforcement people myself, like for the podcast and offline also, I do think it’s a lot of these like stereotypically nervous things which do show up.

Like I’ve watched a lot of interrogation footage. I mean, there’s some people that you’re like, oh yeah, if you turn the sound off, you could probably spot these, these people just seem unusually nervous for like the situation. Like they’re just coming in to be talked to, right? So it’s just to say like we can igno- I, I think that’s an interesting idea because it helps us see like, A, this stuff isn’t very useful, but there might be cases where practitioners are, are thinking like, “This person just came across like extremely nervous and made me think like there’s no way this…”

You know, made them think it was highly unlikely that they were innocent. But I’m curious for your, for your thoughts on threading that needle there.

Stan Walters: I agree with that. I think that’s the point. You have some… And it’s, that might be related to communication skills. And so if you’re If you think an upside down bell curve, think of body language and how much people use, take the bell curve and turn it upside down.

Okay? My dad was a pastor of a church, and we had a deaf church that was also operated in another part of our church. And once a month they’d come up and their pastor would sign language for the hearing and speech impaired. And one of the things I try to point out to the students is that, you know, how does a s- person who has speech impairment or hearing impairment, what are their sign language signs like if they’re angry?

Well, they tend to be further from their body and larger, ’cause they gotta compensate, right? And their hearing is more compensated. You find people with poor verbal skills have to supplement with a lot of nonverbal output. They don’t do it consciously, it’s just the pattern. Then there’s the rest of us kind of in the middle of the curve.

But then way over here on this side, the peak again, now you’re talking about the, um, oh, who’s the guy, the NLP guy? I can’t think of his name. He just went right out of my head. Tony-

Zach Elwood: Oh, Tony, uh, Robbins?

Stan Walters: To- like, like Tony Robbins- Yeah … or like Barack Obama or like Reagan or like some of the best orators. Uh, uh, Rubio, great orator.

And it’s almost an art form.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: And their movements and their gestures, and it’s, it’s such a synchronized beautiful thing to watch because their skills and expressions all match- Hmm … very well with each other. So they may be, like you said, those poor liars are on that far part of the scale, they lack that.

Now, what took me, and, and I’d like you to think the next level, I’ve delved a lot into persuasion and influence with Robert Cialdini.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: Primarily, how do we persuade someone ethically, if you’re like talking to a victim or witness, to be cooperative or to be compliant or to trust you? You have thinking and acting, so the top row would be influence and then persuasion.

That’s the ethical process. On the bottom is the dark side, is manipulation and coercion. So if somebody’s deceiving you, they’re trying to manipulate your thinking, that your thinking’s wrong, you’ve made the mistake, you’ve had the error, this is your fault, you’ve misinterpreted, gaslighting more or less.

And so they have to manipulate you through body language how not to do it. If you listen to the dialogue. Now, the coercion, “If you don’t do this, I’ll sue you. If you don’t do this, I’ll fire… get you fired from the job,” et cetera. And that’s where I think deception operates, is in that manipulation segment.

So combining your thoughts, and I’ll, I’ll, I’ll put a new bug in your bonnet so you can start thinking about it. I’ve created a, a, an AI cartoon, I’ll admit it, for class Using a body language signal to determine if a person is being deceptive is about as valuable as taking a water sample with an eyedropper out of the Pacific Ocean.

You’re taking that one sample, that one, of all the stuff that you have, and you’re judging by that microscopic sample.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: Let’s take the whole conversation. So I’ve … Working on what I call cognitive reliability framework. So this morning I was doing a podcast, uh, with Billy Bush on the interview of Patrick Clancy, the husband of the woman who killed a baby, he said at trial.

And he … And when we were talking about his reliability, to me now I’m looking, there’s no … And I wanna follow up with a question in an interview. I’m looking for missing spots.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. And one- Like narrative, narrative missing spots? Yeah.

Stan Walters: Right. Uh-huh. Um, there’s one myth, liars tell too many details. No, liars prattle.

Liars don’t even give you a good lie because they know if you go check it, you find out they’re lying. They’re very, very vague.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: Example that just jumped in my head two weeks ago and I wrote about it. There’s a guy in my class named Rex. I, a, a Sunday school class back when I lived in Kentucky. He worked for IBM, they had an IBM plant.

So what do you … I went to ask him, “What do you do, Rex?” He said, “I am a repair manual tester.” Would that be like little Abner being the mattress tester, you know? I said, “What is a, a, a repair manual tester?” He said, “I’m at a …” You remember the old balls electric typewriters?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: Okay. He said, that’s the era he was in.

He said, “The guy standing next to me, he’s reading the repair manual for me to take this apart and fix something. So he’ll read, ‘Remove the ball.’ So I’ll remove the ball. ‘Take out platen.’ He said I’ll stop. And he said, ‘What’s the matter?’ ‘You didn’t tell me how to take out the platen.’ He goes, ‘Oh, unscrew the screws.’

Which ones? There’s two on each end.” So Rex would stop because there wasn’t fulfilled instructions. So think of your victim The more that data they give, and this, this we– is, is also, uh, verified with, with, uh, peer-reviewed research. They give you more connective detail. And so it’s almost like listening, could you recreate the event as they have just said it- Mm-hmm

by following that storyline? Now, if you’re my victim, and it was one, it was a, a guy who was a serial killer, and his first possible victim survived. She didn’t realize it. We didn’t realize it for a long time. She made a comment about stumbling down a hall, uh, and, um, it’s a long story. I asked her because she said it twice, but it, it didn’t make sense.

I said, “Why were you stumbling? Were you drinking? Were you doing drugs?” Which is all right. “Why was you stumbling?” She said, “Well, it was like a gray piece of paper in front of my face. There was only two little holes I could stare through, like turning binoculars backwards, looking at the big end.”

Zach Elwood: Oh, nice little detail, yeah.

Stan Walters: I said, “Yeah.” I said, “What were you doing in the bedroom?” And she told me he was strangling her to death. She had three or four c- ’cause they were into gasping stuff. She’d been interviewed three or four times, and the homicide investigator beside me, he was telling, he said, “We’ve talked to you several times.

You never told us that. Why didn’t you tell us?” And here’s the impression. She said, “I didn’t know it was important, and you didn’t ask me.”

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: So it begins, what am I not hearing? Can I string it together and put a storyboard together? And that victim may think, “Well, that’s not important,” or they’re embarrassed, or they feel partially responsible for their victimization.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Stan Walters: I was interviewing a guy. He’s a, he was a rapist up in Baton Rouge. They asked me to come in. It was on cr- New Year’s holidays. Said, “Sure, I’ll come up.” I was in Kentucky. And all I was talking to him about was one victim who tried, who had escaped from him. Spent three hours, talked about his background and family, came back the next day, three hours, and I hit a spot about his relationship with, with women, and his head dropped, and he put his hands in his face.

I said, “He’s– Oh, something’s coming. Tell me what happened, Danny.” He gave up a 16-year-old unsolved homicide in Texas that nobody knew he was connected to. When I got done, when they finished with him, he had 16 homicides over 16 years. He was a serial killer. They executed him in Texas about eight years ago Say, beautiful thing, I didn’t have anything to contaminate him with.

I was just picking those missing spots-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Stan Walters: where there was gaps, where memories were scrambled, and hoping to clear them up. And the more I dug, the more- Hmm … this information. And I treat him respect.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: Didn’t yell at, didn’t accuse him.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And I was there for talk about a rape.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: I got him from Montana to Florida to Alabama to Mississippi, all the way to Florida, killing women down the Pahoa Pipeline.

Zach Elwood: Getting back to that point about how much information there can be and what people say, it’s like there’s just so much massive information- Mm-hmm … in what people say and what they don’t say, and what they draw attention to, and what they leave out, and what they’re vague about, and the verifiability of what they say.

You know, like there’s just so much information there- Yeah … and it’s like, it just is crazy to me that people would think like, “I’m gonna focus on like these non-verbal things” when like there’s just so much massive information. And to your point, like so many of the, so many of the patterns, like including patterns that have been studied, you know, in, in research I, I was talking to, uh, for the podcast I talked to, uh, Bennett Klei- Kleinberg, who does, uh, research into, you know, verbal statement patterns around deception.

Right. And some of it, you know, is related to what you just talked about. And it’s like, um, yeah, there’s, there’s just so much information there about where people are, are drawing your attention, getting the sense of where those, yeah, like you said, the gaps in the stories or where it’s vague. Yeah, so I think it’s a, it’s a great point,

Stan Walters: yeah.

It’s part of the manipulation. And a, a couple spots where you’re digging, the more recent setup, uh, I did a YouTube one that went this morning, verifiability approach. Look at verifiability approach.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm

Stan Walters: Cognitive credibility assessment and, and ACID. It’s not that acid. Uh, s- something, uh, cues indicating a, uh, A-C-I-D, something cues indicating deception.

Those first- Hmm … three are showing very, very, very high promise.

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah. Assessment criteria indicative of deception.

Stan Walters: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: S- so that’s, that’s where my, my mind is now.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Stan Walters: Now, you were asking a great question about why are we teaching this stuff still?

Zach Elwood: Well, that … I wanna ask you, are we still … ‘Cause I, I’m curious.

I’m not, I’m not in law enforcement, and I try to get people talking about this ’cause I, I don’t have insight into it. But it’s like- Sure … it seems to me like it’s kind of, you know, sort of like mapping your learnings. It seems it’s kind of fallen by the wayside for in large part. But I’m curious to get your take on that.

D- uh, what have you seen over the years? I mean, ’cause one thing I’ve, I’ve seen is like with the failure of the, or at least perceived failure of the SPOT program and such- Uh-huh … uh, in TSA, it seems like a lot of those ideas have kind of like fallen by the wayside. But what’s your, what’s your view? Are they still rampant and, and common in-

Stan Walters: It’s still, it’s still rampant.

Zach Elwood: Okay.

Stan Walters: I was looking the other day and at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center down in Georgia, they’re still teaching 50-year-old out-of-date body language symptoms as sign of deception to federal agents.

Zach Elwood: Wow.

Stan Walters: I, I’ve have run across many academies. One of the first things I do in, in the morning in one of my classes, the first three hours, four hours, we work on the Daubert principle, what is scientific evidence, and why some of the things we’ve been using will get your butt sued off in federal court for false confessions contamination.

And so I g- I, I said, “I’m giving you inoculation. This is your legal inoculation.” I, I ask them, “What are some of the signs of deception?” And they give me all kinds of body language signs. I said, “Where’d you learn this?” “Such and so class.” “When’d you have it?” “Two weeks ago.”

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: And the answer that you get when you talk to those academies, that

You can finish the sentence for me. That’s the way we’ve-

Zach Elwood: Always done things?

Stan Walters: Bingo. A lot of academies are check mark. Now, go to an academy, ask them this, “Have you audited your officer-involved shooting training? Have you looked over?” “Oh, yeah, we keep it up to date.” Okay. “Have you audited domestic violence and seen what your training was about dealing with domestic violence or hostage?”

“Oh, yeah, we train regularly.” “Have you audited anything you’re being taught by interview and interrogation?” “No, we’ve used the same technique for 30 years.”

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Interesting.

Stan Walters: Uh, and a number that you might find fascinating, and you might have to get Chad or somebody to do this, the number of officer-involved shootings in the United States, average financial losses per, per case.

Then the number of false confession cases that go to trial is like one-fifth, maybe one-quarter, really small number. But the numbers for loss are fi- financially are five times as high as an officer-involved shooting wrongful death investigation.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: Case last year or two years ago in Chicago, false confession case, $120 million award to the victim.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: They hit the two investigators 50 grand a piece. Now, where’s that 120 million come from?

Zach Elwood: Taxpayer.

Stan Walters: Yep. And they’ll get… And this is where I do my investments. They’ll do a bond issue at 4%, and they’ll raise bonds for something, and they’ll pay every six months at a 4 or 5% on that bond at $2,500 per bond.

You buy them up, investment. They are tax deductible because they are not… Or they’re not taxable because they’re municipal bonds. A good 40% of my retirement money is in municipal bonds.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And that’s how they pay for it, which means they don’t have money for the other projects and everything else they’re doing in the city- Hmm

and for their, for the citizens.

Zach Elwood: I may, I may have a biased sample because I follow- Sure … like people into the science-based interrogation on LinkedIn and such like Ma- Sure … Maria Hartwig and people like that. Oh,

Stan Walters: yeah, Maria’s great.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. And it’s like, I, I probably just have a skewed perspective of how common those ideas are.

Uh, but you would think… I, I’m just shocked because like you say, it’s like there’s theoretically a lot of money on the line. You would think they, even out of defense, they would, uh, defense purposes, they would put more efforts into like updating their trainings and such.

Stan Walters: I think you’ve ha- I, I saw you had, uh, Mr.

Bieler, Secret Service. Uh, have you talked to Christian Corey?

Zach Elwood: Yeah, he was on my episode with, uh- I thought so … Ma- Maria. Yeah.

Stan Walters: But there’s some, um, Mark Anderson. These ones I’ve spotted on LinkedIn also that are on, I think are on the right path.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: I see this one on LinkedIn. This person has been named one of the top three body language people in the world by Time Magazine.

It’s a popularity poll.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: But she’s one of the three top body language people I know her, I know her background. The, and there’s several other people like this. “I’ve trained with the FBI.” Well, I check on it, they sat in a one class

Zach Elwood: There’s a lot of ambiguous language used.

Stan Walters: Yes, there is.

Zach Elwood: It, yeah, like I’ve, I’ve seen this a lot where it’s like I, one, one, one I recently saw was where one of these, you know, behavior experts said- Uh-huh

I’ve trained people from like 16 government agencies or something like that. Yeah. And then that led podcast, a podcast host who interviewed her to say she’s trained 16 government agencies or something. But what she really did was she spoke to a room in which there may have been one- Mm-hmm … or more person.

She did, you know, she did it for the polygraph examiners, uh- Right … group or something. And like, so there were people that were from or had previously been at some of those agencies. So it’s like, uh, I, I think this like ambiguous language is common for any self-promotional- Uh-huh … stuff, but it’s like especially common in this like behavior expert space, let’s, let’s say.

Um, you just really have to like think about kind of getting back to like interviewing people, i- interrogations, you have to really examine what are they actually telling you and what they’re leaving out. Like, how are they wording, how are people wording their things, you know? Um.

Stan Walters: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: You know, you were talking about the, and, and you got some questions to ask, and why don’t you make sure you get to them.

But you were talking about the, the poor liars.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: You know, they don’t do a poor job. I’ve, and I have trained 40 hours, have taught to National Security Agency for 25 years, um, among o- and Defense Intelligence Agency. I’ve been in 33 military units during the Gulf War training battlefield surveillance brigades, military intelligence, counterintelligence.

I’ve trained the entire fifth group, first group, seventh, uh, fourth infantry, tw- uh, 33 different units. So my stuff was used down range. Okay. Do you think any of the spies or in, or the intelligence operatives or double agents or undercover operatives gonna be bad liars. Not if they keep, gonna keep their job, they don’t.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: My business partner for 30 years was CIA, and his job, he did the bringing the spies in from the cold who defected from other countries.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: So Bill and I, on our traveling a trip, had long conversations about the cases and some of the things that these guys did. Uh, but I would just, comparison of that- Well-

truly trained spy versus, you know, the common criminal.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I, i- in my, in my talking about that bad liar idea, it’s like, a- and I hope it’s clear it’s not to defend the use of- Oh, no, no, no … non-verbal behavior. It’s like, it’s, I think it’s helping explain why some people, it’s one of the many reasons, I think, one of several reasons why I think practitioners can think like, “No, there’s something to this.

I’ve interacted with people that I thought behaved, you know, non-verbally strange.” And it’s like, yeah, you maybe have, but that doesn’t tell us that that’s useful as a practice or a protocol, right? Yeah. Like, um, it’s like, yeah, there’s, there are interesting things that happen in the non-verbal space. Like I have many, a list of many things that I have observed.

It doesn’t mean like I would use it as a protocol ’cause it’s like, you know, a- and I’ve talked to law enforcement people for this show that were like, “Well, even if you notice those things, you know, you, you almost always have other information that’s much more valuable, like the things they’re saying- Yeah

the evidence. And y- and you’re not gonna base a major decision on those things anyway. You’re not gonna like write it up like they touched their face or they, you know, you’re not gonna write it up as evidence or like a reason to do anything. Exactly. Yeah. So it’s like, even if you, even if you have a inkling that it mattered in some sense, it’s like, what are you gonna do with that?

Like almost always you’re gonna rely on where the investigation is taking you from the evidence and what they say. So it’s like-

Stan Walters: You, you know what strikes me about that is something d- it’s punchline. I wonder how many of these people have interviewed an adult or a child that has ADHD And try, and try to read body language.

I’ve got a daughter and a gr- and her son, my grandson, both ADHD.

Zach Elwood: Mm. Mm.

Stan Walters: I defy you to try to keep track of the body language of those two when they get, when they get jazzed up.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Uh, yeah.

Stan Walters: Let’s hear your questions, ’cause I’ve, I’ve taken

Zach Elwood: up most of the

Stan Walters: time- Oh, yeah …

Zach Elwood: so, so fire away I think, uh, I mean, I think we’re largely…

I, I’ll skip over quite a few of them, but I am curious to get, uh, uh, you know, when it comes to the things that actually mattered, because I, I, I’m, I’m interested, leaving, leaving aside, like, the actual story narrative stuff of what people say, I, I’m, I’m kind of interested in this, like, quick read aspect of, like, little clues.

You know, I’ll give an ex- Mm … I’ll give an example. You talked about the verifiability aspect, the, the dimension of that where, uh, I had an e- I had an example of that in real, in real world where, uh, related to the Epstein file stuff. Uh-huh. There was, uh, Brett Ratner, the director, had apparently gone to, you know, the Epst- one of the Epstein parties.

And so there was- Mm-hmm … uh, there was a picture of him and Epstein, and they both had a, a woman beside them. They, they each had- Yeah … a woman beside them, but the women’s faces were, were, uh- Right … blacked out. You couldn’t tell who the women were. And Brett Ratner was explaining it in an interview, and he said, um, uh…

And in, in the picture the woman looked pretty young. You couldn’t tell her age, but she looked pretty young. And Brett Ratner was like, “That was my fiancee. Uh, we ended up breaking up.” And the, the- Oof … the fact that he would be so specific is- Mm-hmm … is the verifiability thing. Like, if he was gonna deceive you, he would use ambiguous language, right?

But the fact that he- Right … said something that you could easily verify, right? Like, that stood out to me as like, “Oh, I think he’s telling the truth,” like, immediately. Because, like, a liar’s not gonna, like, use very sp- like, it, it’d be pretty easy- Specific, yeah … to vet his story, right? You could find out who his fiances or close girlfriends were and figure it out from there, right?

So that, th- those are kind of, like, quick reads that I’m interested in. Yeah. And I’m, and I’m curious, like, what, what stands out to you? It might be a big question, but I’m curious, what’s top of mind for you for, like, getting a quick sense in, in the real world of, like, “Oh, I got a, I got a very highly confident vibe that this person’s deceptive or not”?

Stan Walters: I like to engage them first and just, just in a dialogue, see, to get talkative and, and get that, that open dialogue. And cut up and say something half stupid just, you know, to break the ice.

Zach Elwood: Mm. Mm-hmm. Set them at ease by you being not as

Stan Walters: serious. Set, set them, yes. Yeah, yeah. I just goof off, you know- Yeah

and so forth. Prisoners, give them coffee. You know, take them Dr Pepper, a Reese cup, Ding Dong, give them something. You know, that’s part of reciprocity. When I do the inmates and when I get cases from attorneys, so let’s say it’s a homicide or a child abuse, whatever. I’ll say, “Okay, fine. Do not tell me the facts of the case.

I do not wanna know. Do not send me the forensics.” “Well, how are you gonna know?” I said, “If your interviewer’s any good, they’ll uncover it. I’ll hear it.” And so that’s what I’m judging is what I’m hearing. And I’ll say, “Have you gone back to look at this? And I have a problem with this spot and this spot.”

Homicide, a cop, and a store owner. Three young men were convicted, sent to death row on it, and they were appealing. One of them was appealing his death sentence, and he had been coerced or wrongfully convicted. And I had … It was 17 interviews, 14 investigators. A sergeant interviewed witnesses two times, two people in a room at the same time and four people in a room at the same time, interviewed them as a group, a sergeant in homicide.

And this is one of the top 10 police departments in the United States. I’m reading through and I see this point where the g- the, the client said, “Holy cow, he’s not even in the city. It’s right here in the statement.”

Zach Elwood: Hmm. “

Stan Walters: He’s not there. He’s on the phone at his current girlfriend’s house talking to his baby’s mama on the phone.”

They’d missed that.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: And he’s on death row for that. The other two guys- What? … get mad at him because he wouldn’t go in the robbery, so they both blamed him for the homicide.

Zach Elwood: Oh my God.

Stan Walters: And they convicted him with the group. Well, it turns out prosecution also withheld conveniently that part of the evidence in the case.

So they said, “How’d you find that?” I said, “It’s right there in front of me. I can see it.”

Zach Elwood: Wow.

Stan Walters: He’s saying it

Zach Elwood: A quick note here; the case Stan is talking about here was the wrongful conviction of Alfred Dewayne Brown. Apparently Brown’s conviction was based on false testimony from his girlfriend, who later recanted and said that she felt pressured by the investigators and that was why she initially lied. Back to the talk. 

Stan Walters: So you’re right about looking for what’s missing and taking that time. Once, I can’t– I’d have to go back and look now who was the study. Interviewers asked an average of one question every 20 seconds How do you carry on a conversation with that? And you’re supposed to be eliciting comments and remarks.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: But that tends to be that accusatory, you know, if you stop talking you lose, who stops talking first is a loser type approach. So-

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Stan Walters: Again, I’m taking your time, I’m sorry.

Zach Elwood: No, no, no. You have some- That’s- Yeah … uh, that’s what stands out to me as the bad, or at least interrogations that I view as bad.

It’s like they’re asking all these questions, and sometimes they’re, they’re not even… Sometimes they’re asking like two questions in a row, which is like a fundamental- Yeah … you know, a huge mistake ’cause they’re not, then you’re not, they’re not even answering a question at that point. So it’s like- Right

yeah, peppering people with questions really stands up there as like one of the biggest failures.

Stan Walters: Any- This is where you start to yell at televisions.

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah, yeah. You’re watching

Stan Walters: the shows.

Zach Elwood: Well, I was watching that Lie to Me show ’cause I, I had seen a little bit of it before, but I was kinda curious. I got, I g- Yeah

I got down the rabbit hole of like, I wanna see what this thing is talking about. And it’s like, yeah, between Paul Ekman and that show, which is, you know, based on Paul Ekman’s ideas- Sure … like so much of that stuff is… I mean, Paul Ekman is the progenitor of so much of that, those ideas. And then like, but from that show, that show basically acted as like, let us disperse all these ideas to a mainstream audience.

So now you have all these people thinking these like faulty ideas about what’s possible with, uh… You know, even though there’s like a major disclaimer on the show, it’s like, yeah, many people think like, “Oh, this is based on real research.” Right. Like, “This is real. You can really do this stuff,” you know? So it’s, it’s kind of a wild show and, and just from a culturally significant show, I think, in the behavior reading space.

Stan Walters: I think one thing you picked up on too is that, uh, Ekman’s work was a big, uh, central part of the SPOT program that TSA was using. And I had a poli- a detective, we were talking about the SPOT program. He said, “Yeah, they’re probably ready to, to put me up ’cause they… I was on a flight. I badged ’em, and the lady said, ‘You look like you’re upset today.'”

Well, that’s called a sh- single shoot question. “Yeah, you’re gonna make me miss my flight.” And so they pulled him off and detained him, asking questions. “I’m on my way for a case.” Made him miss his flight.

Zach Elwood: Mm. Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And so you can imagine the little frustration that he’s got. They pulled him. Mm-hmm. So a defi- you know, a hammer is a hammer till you give it to a monkey.

Then he’s gonna do what he want. He’ll hammer everything with it.

Zach Elwood: This is great, Stan. I almost, if you’re up for it, I’ll invite you back in future ’cause I feel like- Oh, I’d love

Stan Walters: to …

Zach Elwood: we only just- Yeah … scratched the surface, and I think you have a really interesting perspective as somebody who was so into the…

Or, I don’t, I don’t wanna say so into, but you were into- You’re right … the body language stuff- Oh, yeah … early on. That’s what I

Stan Walters: learned on. And then

Zach Elwood: the arc, I mean, I, I talked to Mark Anderson. He had a similar, uh, arc there. But yeah, this has been great. Is there anything you wanna talk about, what you’re working on, before we, uh, sign off on this?

Stan Walters: Got a big YouTube channel going. You’ve, you’ve seen that. I got about 180, uh, videos there. Oh, I do have a free guide that you can get if anybody wants to get a hold of it.

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah. Give the, uh, address for that.

Stan Walters: I have a pretty good… If you look at thelieguy.com, it’ll pop up, slide across the front page.

It’s an eGuide. Now, I’ve done something cool with it, electronic guide. It’s an, a PDF. You’ve seen in a PDF they have highlights that take you to a website, the hyperlinks. Mm-hmm. So I thought, “Okay, why couldn’t I put a hyperlink to a video that addresses this topic?” So I did that too for every section. So there’s 18 videos associated with that topic.

So I started searching, who else has done this? Nobody.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: I couldn’t find anybody that put the video with the link inside the e-book. Right. Free download, use it all you want. Mm-hmm. Pass it around, just don’t take my name off of it and just don’t change it. I mean, enjoy it the way you want.

Zach Elwood: I was curious, a random question.

When you talked about those studies you did with John Jay back in the day with the footage from the real cases, is any of that stuff available to, even to a private audience that, i- i- is that stuff available to wa- for anybody to watch?

Stan Walters: That part is not. Yeah. Um, I have some stuff that I have done… Well, if you just search Interviews and Interrogations on YouTube, you’ll come up with a lot.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, there’s a lot. I kind of wonder if there was like, you know, I’m always interested in the real footage and, and, and like- Sure … especially for one, if they did, if they already have it cropped or whatever for, uh-

Stan Walters: Uh-huh …

Zach Elwood: for a, for a, you know, behavior study. That’s kind of interesting, too. It’s, like, more focused and they, and if, and if they knew the lies and the truths aspect, too.

That’s- Yeah … that’s interesting. But, um, yeah, maybe I’ll ask you more about that offline, though. Uh, but this has been great. Yeah. Thanks a lot for joining me, Stan.

Stan Walters: I’m s- sorry I dominated, but I just … You can tell I love what I do.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: I’ve been doing it 40, 40, 44 years now. 50,000 hours as an instructor.

Zach Elwood: Wow.

Stan Walters: 40 prisons, visiting. Visiting.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Stan Walters: 15, fif- I’ve got, in my office, I got 1,500 videotaped interviews of those inmates, including US detention barracks in, in Fort Leavenworth where I did- Wow … some work with the US Army CID MP school.

Zach Elwood: Very cool.

Stan Walters: Oh, you had a great question. Where’d the Lie Guy come from?

This would be a good one to close with.

Zach Elwood: Okay. Yeah, yeah.

Stan Walters: So the internet was brand new, and used to be just, you know, your name was letters and codes, and AOL came out, you could just start using a name.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And I remember distinctly, this is the, this is a factual story. Context, semantics, cognitive, sensory cues are in here.

Okay? I was in Denver, downtown in a, down in the basement of a hotel, and a guy was talking. He was an arson investigator. And I was talking about maybe getting on the internet, and he said, “You should do it, email.” I said, “What’s an email?” You know? That’s how new it was, right? And he says, “Well, get AOL. It’s the easiest, and here’s my email address.

Send me a note. I’ll send a note back.” His address was [email protected].

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Stan Walters: So I sign up. “What’s your screen name?” I go, “What’s a screen name?” So I look it up and I says… And I thought, “Fire Guy,” and I thought, “Lie Guy.”

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah. So that’s how

Stan Walters: you- So I put it in. It was two months later that NBC called me to do a thing with Lynn Cannon on the Ramseys interview.

And he said, “Do you have an e-, uh, do you have a email address?” I said, “Yes, I do. I got an email address.” It’s Lie Guy @AOL.com. The … And he said, “Oh, you’re The Lie Guy.” And I thought, “That’s a trademark.”

Zach Elwood: Mm. Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: I filed immediately on it. So that always ca- I- always catches somebody’s attention. “Oh, you’re The Lie Guy.”

Zach Elwood: Mm. Mm-hmm.

Stan Walters: And I’ve had that email … Well, I’ve had that trademarked, like, 40-something years now.

Zach Elwood: No, that’s cool. Yeah. So it just- Good backstory … it’s

Stan Walters: a tag. Yeah. Just a tag.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. All right. Based on the con- context clues and specificity, I, I think you were telling the truth there, so yeah. All right. Um, no, this is great, Stan.

Thanks a lot.

Zach Elwood: That was a talk with Stan Walters, who you can learn more about by going to his site thelieguy.com. 

This has been the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. You can learn more about this podcast at behavior-podcast.com. You can learn more about my work on poker tells at readingpokertells.com. 

Music by Small Skies. 

Categories
podcast

Slot machine “advantage player” on the strategies, risks, lifestyle, and ethics

How does someone make a living playing slot machines—and why would casinos let them? After joining professional gambler Chris Huang on a casino trip in Atlantic City, I talk with him about the unusual career of casino “advantage play” and how pro slot machine players capture the money left behind by other, less knowledgeable players. We explore why manufacturers create beatable machines, the psychological tricks that machine makers use to attract players, and the unethical actions some slot machine pros take to manipulate players into leaving profitable seats. Chris explains the risks pro slot machine players can encounter, how seemingly promising opportunities can turn into expensive mistakes, why a little knowledge can be dangerous, and what happens when you run out of cash in the middle of a long-term play. We also discuss online gambling “gurus” selling dubious claims of expertise, the secrecy and competition among slot professionals, and the appeal—and pressures—of making a living this way. Learn more about Chris at youtube.com/@gamblingeducationwithchris.

Episode links:

Major takeaways from this talk about the lifestyle and strategies of professional slot machine players:

  • Professional slot players focus on a small percentage of machines that become profitable to play under specific conditions.
  • Their profits come largely from money other players have contributed to jackpots, rather than from beating the casino out of its share.
  • Much of the work involves studying games, learning their rules, and recognizing when a machine offers a worthwhile opportunity.
  • Daily routines can involve walking through many casinos, checking machines and collecting small profits along the way.
  • Managing risk requires enough cash, realistic expectations, and sometimes a partner to share long sessions and cover breaks.
  • Competition encourages secrecy: professionals may hide which machines they check to avoid teaching rivals their strategies.
  • Ethical boundaries matter: Chris avoids manipulating recreational players into leaving valuable machines and criticizes professionals who do.
  • The lifestyle offers independence and perks like free rooms and meals, but demands discipline, constant decision-making, and dedication to learning from mistakes.

TRANSRIPT

(transcripts are generated automatically and will contain mistakes)

Chris Huang: I think anyone that’s been doing slots for a while has this, uh, horror story where they misjudged the play. There, these long plays that can take hours; you have to be prepared. ‘Cause all of us, uh, that’s been doing this for a while has, has hit a situation where we ran out of money. Either call someone at 2:00 AM in the morning and be like, “Hey, I need you to, I need you to come and bring money to me,” right?Or you actually had to leave the play. And that’s like, that’s like, that’s like the worst outcome, right? 

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with Chris Huang, who’s a professional slot machine player. People who make money by exploiting casino games are also known as “advantage players,” so Chris can also be called a slot machine advantage player. 

I recently hung out with Chris in Atlantic City for a couple days as he showed me how he makes money. Atlantic City isn’t a great place to do such work, for reasons we’ll mention in this talk, but it did allow me to watch him do what he does. 

My name is Zach Elwood and this is the People Who Read People podcast. If you don’t already know who I am, I used to play poker for a living and I’m the author of some respected books on poker tells, so I was interested in what the life of a professional slot machine player looked like. But even apart from my interest in the gambling world, I’m also just interested in unusual jobs and pastimes people have. So I think I would have been interested in following Chris around the casino even if I wasn’t a poker player.

I knew almost nothing about exploiting slot machines when I first hung out with Chris. I had some basic questions about it that you might have, too. For example, isn’t it hard to beat the casino at its own games? Isn’t it nearly impossible to, as they say, “beat the house”? But what I learned from Chris is that exploiting slot machines has a lot more in common with poker than it does with playing house games like blackjack and roulette, in terms of it involving taking money from other players, and not about taking money from the house.

So in this talk I ask Chris about the ins and outs of this rather unusual profession. One interesting topic we get on is how some advantage players will bother amateur slot machine players to try to get them to leave a profitable machine, or otherwise manipulate them into letting them play — which by the way, Chris does not do, and we’ll also get into why he doesn’t do that and where he sees the ethical boundaries. 

We talk about why it is that slot machine manufacturers decide to make machines that can be beat in this way; because not all slot machines are exploitable, only a small percentage of them are; so what drives the creation of those? We talk about psychological tricks that slot machine makers use to attract people to their machines, and their motives. 

We talk about the risks involved in trying to exploit slot machines, like the risks Chris was talking about in that introductory clip. We talk about the considerations in knowing how to avoid high risk situations and how experience helps with that, and about how Chris thinks about risk management in general, as a professional gambler. 

We touch on fake advantage player con artists who claim they have secret systems for gambling but are just using that to gain followers online and get attention and so on. We also talk about the rise in popularity of prediction markets and other online gambling platforms, and the risks to people who get into such things thinking they know what they’re doing when they really don’t. 

I also ask Chris some cultural, ethnographic questions about the lifestyle: like what the relationships are like between fellow slot machine advantage players; and how it’s possible to easily recognize serious slot machine players in the casino; and why Chris is drawn to such a lifestyle as opposed to more traditional ways of making money. 

By the way, if you’re listening to this on audio, this episode is also available on youtube, and in the youtube video I’ll include some video I shot in Atlantic City of Chris showing me what he does; him actually playing the games and talking about what he’s doing. I’ll include some of that at the end of the youtube episode. 

Regarding that Atlantic City trip: I’ll add that after getting several hours of tutoring from Chris, I did succeed in going off, on my own, and spotting a slot machine in a profitable state. So that was kind of the high point of the trip, sending a pic to Chris of a specific machine and asking him “I think this machine is playable right now, right?” and him saying ‘yeah, it is’. So that will probably be as far as I go into the world of slot machine advantage play, but it was fun to get even that far into it. 

Chris also just recently started up a youtube channel; his channel is called Gambling Education with Chris. I’ll have a link to that in the episode entry on my site behavior-podcast.com and in the youtube video description. If you want to learn more about him, you can check that out. 

Okay here’s the talk with Chris Huang.

Zach Elwood: Hey, Chris. Thanks for joining me.

Chris Huang: Hey, Zach. Good to be here

Zach Elwood: Maybe a good place to start is the thing that confused me when I first learned about what you do, which is how is it that slot machines can even be beatable in the first place? Because I think a lot of people would be like, “Well, why would they give you a house edge?”

So maybe you could talk a little bit about where the edge a- and the money is coming from.

Chris Huang: Yeah. So I totally understand that, and for a long timeI felt the same way. You look at people playing slots and just kind of dismiss them, right? It’s very silly, uh, that slots can be beat. But basically, um, 90% of slot machines I totally ignore, but there are like 10% where there are kind of two main features.

And so the first main feature is that it’s what we call a must hit by. And it’s, and it’s kind of, it’s in the rules of the slot machine. And there’s this jackpot, and it basically says, um, “This jackpot must be hit by a certain number.” The must hit by is at 200. If the jackpot’s at one, 199.99, it’s like, uh, you’re guaranteed to hit it on the next spin.

So the closer and closer you get, uh, you want to, um… It’s actually plus EV to play it, uh, at, at a certain point.

Zach Elwood: And people… A- And the reason they can be in those states is people just don’t notice. They leave them in a state that’s positive, uh, expected value without really knowing- Right … that it’s in that expected value state.

Chris Huang: Yeah. Yeah, positive expected. So other people play it, and they… The jackpot starts at a smaller number, and then it, it kinda climbs up, right? And then, uh, when it gets closer and closer, uh, and then, like as… My job, or our job, is to kind of figure out the break-even point. At what, at what point am I going to play this game, right?

And once it gets onto it, I play it and I finish it. The, the s- the second example is what we call a progressive jackpot. So that’s similar to, uh, the lotto, the Mega Millions, where the jackpot, it gets progressively bigger and bigger. It’s not guaranteed to be hit, but the math kinda works like, you know, the jackpot hit one billion a few years ago.

At that point, you know, you can… It’s actually positive to play.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. At some point it gets large enough where i- i- it’s a, it’s a positive expectation to play it, yeah.

Chris Huang: That’s, that’s kind of the foundation of all, like, advantage slots.

Zach Elwood: Right. And maybe you could talk a little bit more about that point about how this is a…

There’s only a small percentage of slot machines that are even possible to, you know, play for an advantage. There… Because, like, when I hung out with you in Atlantic City, you know, you’re walking by, you know, 90% of them looking for the select few that actually have these, these qualities that you mentioned.

Maybe you could talk a little bit about why are some manufacturers creating those machines that have those features. My understanding is that it’s related to, you know, making the machines more exciting. Is that, is that right?

Chris Huang: Yeah, it is, it is a little strange that these beatable machines are only make up a small portion of them, right?

When I go into a casino, most of the time I just disregard 90% of the machines because there, there’s no progressive and there’s no m- must hit by feature that I’m looking for.

Zach Elwood: They’re just, they’re just static. They’re just like- Yeah … they

Chris Huang: act

Zach Elwood: the same way every time, basically.

Chris Huang: Every time you s- you play and you spin it, your expected o- outcome is just, is constant, yeah, it’s static.

It’s the same. But a must hit by a progressive, y- you’re actually, you’re playing advantage because either the reward is big enough or the must hit by is close enough.

Zach Elwood: It, it has a dynamic nature. It’s like it change… The state of the machine changes over time- Yeah … and you’re looking for those change states.

Chris Huang: Yeah. And so what’s happening is the, the public is playing these games at a significant disadvantage. They’re losing a lot more than the standard, uh, what we call RTP, return to player, which is like 80, uh, 88%, 90%. They’re losing a lot more because they have to d- they’re contributing to these kind of jackpots.

What, what I do is I’m able to capture, like when I’m playing, I’m playing at above 100%, or there, there’s reasons to play it at, um, below 100%, but let’s just, you know, we’re playing at 100%. I’m able to capture a lot of the value, uh, from, from the public player pool. Uh, the reason why slot manufacturers do this, uh, I can’t speak on their behalf, but generally, um, these, what we call persistent machines, they’re…

Yeah, they, they, they attract more players, right? So-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Chris Huang: the p- regular public plays it, and also, uh, APs play, advantage players play it, right? Basically, they’re able to go to the casino and say, “Oh, hey, this game gets a lot more play.” The business model is they’re leased to the casinos, and they sign these contracts where popular games, they’re able to kind of have better contract terms for the manufacturers.

And the casinos are kind of… And on the one hand, it’s like, they’re like, “Okay, slots are so profitable, we just, like, we have to do everything to have a good relationship with our vendors,” right? “We just wanna have all these slot machines.” But on the other hand, they’re also kind of making a, a, I think, a big mistake, in which they’re handing a lot of power to the slot manufacturers in, in their kind of contract rate.

Having these machines, uh, is not exactly… There is a cost associated with it, in which your best customer that’s actually losing a lot more than expected, you’re not, like, identifying them, or you’re not compensating them with comps as well. And you’re transferring all this money to, to, to APs, which is okay.

Like, they still make their money, the casinos. But there is kind of negative externalities that the casinos have to deal with. They don’t, they don’t realize that they’re kind of paying a price for it. So the manufacturers- Right … get to win in allowing, uh… Just yeah, they’re incentivized to do this because it gets more play from the public, and it gets extra play from APs.

So they’re able to kind of use this as leverage in negotiating with, uh, with their casinos.

Zach Elwood: The thing that stood out, I mean, they, they are more interesting games. The dynamic nature of them does make them more interesting, e- even from a, just kind of an addictive level, where it’s like you’re playing the game, and you see this kind of like go through a cycle- Yeah

where you know, like, there’s, there, there might be some decent payoff at the end of s- whatever cycle kind of thing it’s doing, or it’s the jackpot’s building, whatever the, the, the dynamic nature is. So there i- it makes sense that it’s a, a more engaging game, which… And, and there’s something interesting there too, where it’s like-

Chris Huang: By

Zach Elwood: them trying to-

Chris Huang: The most

Zach Elwood: interesting- By, by them trying to make it more…

Oh, go ahead

Chris Huang: The most interesting thing is there’s a lot, there’s a trend of fake persistence. So-

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah. Talk, yeah, talk about that. Yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah. So-

Zach Elwood: And when, and when you say, and when you say persistence, we should say persistence is like the dynamic, dynamic nature of like- Yeah … the game state is changing, and that game state stays, you know- Yeah

for, until the next person plays it, right?

Chris Huang: So- That’s what we mean by persistence … we’ll say, like, there’s true persistence and fake persistence. So true persistence is that, that must hit by or progressive gets bigger and bigger or gets closer and closer, right? So that’s true persistence. This is important is that you, you read the rules, which we did during our trip, was there’s pages and pages of rules for every single slot machine.

Um, if you, if you go to a slot machine, there’s like a question mark or a game menu. Like every game has this. Well, I mean, I guess they’re required by law or there’s legal reasons, but, um, the rules kind of tell you, they can explain how this persistent feature works, and in some cases they’ll tell you that this persistence is actually fake, fake persistence.

So- Right.

Zach Elwood: So what’s an example of

Chris Huang: that? Yeah. You go to the last page, and it will say, “The size of the pig has no relationship to the bonus being triggered.” Yeah. Um, um, and when you play it, like the pig gets bigger or the, the character gets bigger. The money

Zach Elwood: pot.

Chris Huang: Yeah, yeah. For people that don’t know what’s going on, they’re like, “Oh.”

They’ll, they’ll be like, “Oh, I have to keep on playing. It’s about to be triggered,” right? But there is, but there, uh, in a, in a lot of cases, it’s fake persistence. There’s no relationship at all. Uh, the fact that it’s getting bigger or the fact that you haven’t hit it does not mean that you’ll hit it soon.

You’ll see two of the same similar games right next to each other, and one is actually real persistence and one is fake persistence. I think they’re doing that for, like, a natural experiment. They’re kind of- Testing,

Zach Elwood: yeah …

Chris Huang: they’re kind of collecting data. Okay, like if we have the same game and one has true persistence and one doesn’t, um, does the true persistence machine d- does this do better on the casino floor?

Um-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, that’s interesting. Yeah, ’cause they might be like, “Wait, maybe we can get the same payoff for fake persistence or something.” Yeah, like maybe they don’t need-

Chris Huang: Right, right. Like- …

Zach Elwood: need the true persistence

Chris Huang: here … th- th- there’s enough data, they can say, “Okay, true persistence is worth this much more, and that, you know, we should do it,” or, “Fake persistence is, is equal, like, uh, we shouldn’t do it.”

Zach Elwood: Mm. Right. Yeah, that’s interesting. Um, there’s something kind of interesting, or at least it seems interesting to me, like the fact that they, they’re incentivized, at least there’s some incentive to create these more complex games that we’ve talked about-

Chris Huang: Mm-hmm …

Zach Elwood: to engage people more, to attract them more, but it’s the act of making the games more complex that makes them, you know, that, that makes you able to exploit it, right?

By, so by making a game more complex, you create more avenues for people to exploit it, right? Or-

Chris Huang: Yeah, yeah. That’s, that’s- Does, does

Zach Elwood: that sound right?

Chris Huang: That’s something that I like more, more complexity.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. That’s

Chris Huang: good. Yeah. Uh, for two reasons. More complexity means, uh, the manufacturers, they might make a mistake.

Um, and that’s, uh, th- th- this has happened where, um, they’ll release machines into the wild. They’re not set up properly, or they, yeah, they didn’t do their homework and there’s something to be exploitable. There, there’s a few examples where you actually have teams traveling throughout the country looking for certain machines and just being like, they’re just primed to hit, uh, when they’re first installed or stuff like that.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Huang: And when it’s more complex, sometimes it makes, it makes the, the audience feel like they figured something out. And they’re like, uh, “Oh, I, I, I figured this out.”

Zach Elwood: It gives you a, a perception of, like, coming up with strategies even if you don’t. Kinda like playing, like, table games and people are like- Yeah

I figured out a way to beat it, right? Like, it gives- Right, right. Yeah … the perception even if they, even if they have not figured out a way to beat it.

Chris Huang: Yeah, yeah. Like, I think very simple games, there’s not much to discuss. It’s very straightforward, right? But complex games, you can kind of talk yourself into saying, “Oh, okay, when this thing happens and this pig gets bigger,” or, “When, when this pig gets bigger combined with this other-

Zach Elwood: Right

Chris Huang: with this other thing,” and you’re like, “Okay, well, that combination…” Yeah, it’s, it’s easy to, to kind of get yourself lost and wrapped a little bit more complex.

Zach Elwood: Right, which people do. You always hear- So. Yeah, g- speaking of- Yeah … like we were talking about off pr- pr- before the, before the, uh, call, we were talking about these people that, you know, fake, uh, fake gambling people who tell you they have all these systems for beating things that are very, you know, uh, un- unlikely.

You know, like, uh, Mickey Mace saying he figured out a secret- Right … baccarat, uh, thing for, like, such a s- The most ridiculous thing about that is baccarat is such a simple game that everybody knows you can’t beat, you know. Uh, but he, he- Yeah … claimed he had some amazing system for it, and there is just such a demand amongst the, you know, the less sophisticated…

Not talking about advantage players who put in a lot of work, but amongst the unsophisticated, regular, you know, Vegas goer who might be like… I, I know people personally who would tell me, like, “Oh, I figured out a system for roulet- roulette,” you know. I’m like, “Okay.” Yeah. “Sure you did. All right.” Yeah.

Chris Huang: So a few things.

It’s like- If someone figured out something really valuable, they, they wouldn’t talk about it.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, they’d just-

Chris Huang: Right? Like it’s- … quietly

Zach Elwood: exploit it as much as they

Chris Huang: could. Yeah … it’s, like if you found money on the floor, uh, you wouldn’t go like, “Hey, whose $100 bill is this?” Right? You would kind of quietly go and just grab the $100 and walk away and hope no one notices, right?

So when I saw early videos of Mickey Mouse, uh, the first thing that, that kind of popped out was that when you start winning, the casino is gonna… They’re gonna watch you like a hawk, right And you start winning large amounts, like after the first million dollars, they’re, they’re, they’re, they’re not stupid.

They’re gonna be like, “You know what? I don’t know how you’re beating us. We’re just not gonna let you play anymore.” Like- Cutting

Zach Elwood: you off, yeah …

Chris Huang: the second thing that was always a little weird was, um, he never explained actually what he was doing. Uh, it, it was always like a charming story where the casino was cheating and then I reversed it and I kind of turned it back on them.

I’m like, okay, like if he did that, they don’t have infinite money to just give away, right? They would just be like, “You’re not playing this game.” Instances of casinos cheating is actually very, very rare. Um-

Zach Elwood: They don’t

Chris Huang: need to … the reason why is because, yeah, they don’t need to, right? They’re allowed to run these games and make a profit.

Like, there’s no need to take that risk, right? There’s no need to be greedy. Every game in the casino is basically a, a money printing machine, right? As long as you can get people to play it, they’re going to win. Like, uh, blackjack is, is an exception. There’s some games like, you know, uh, they actually, like, you know, that can be beat and though so they have to kick those people out.

But like, there’s no reason to make like an extra million dollars and to put your casino license… Like, everything is about the long run. Don’t kill the

Zach Elwood: golden

Chris Huang: goose. You’re, you’re, you’re building a casino. There’s no one customer that’s gonna lose enough for you to put your license at risk, right? Because yeah, like gaming, um, gaming commission, my few instances of, of dealing with them, like they take these, uh, these issues seriously.

It takes a lot of time and money to get this casino license, right? And it- it’s just, it doesn’t make any business sense to put that at risk.

Zach Elwood: I thought we might go back to the point, ’cause we kind of passed by it kind of quick, of like- The f- the reason that slots are beatable is because that money is coming out of the player funds.

Like for, so the l- the rules are such that every slot machine, at least in the US, uh, has to give back a certain amount, right? Like it has to return whatever it is, uh, 90% or whatever the percentage is to players, right? So- Yeah … the fact that you’re exploiting it is coming out of the player funds, which is why the casinos don’t care, because it’s, they’re making their, you know, cut of, of every money that goes into it regardless.

So that’s helps explain why it’s just not an area that casinos really care much about, right? Am I, uh, ag- am I explaining that okay?

Chris Huang: Yeah. Let me explain it a little more clear. A few terms is RTP, return to player. These are machines. They’re designed to take money from the player and give it to the casino, right?

So what the RTP means is that if it’s at 90%, every dollar that you put in, in the long run, 90% is returned to the player, and that also means 10% is given to the house, is given to the casino, right? Based on how they’re settings, they can change the RTP from like 85, 85, um, 80%. Well, like, like act- manufacturers don’t, um, generally they don’t allow very, very low RTP settings.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Huang: They don’t want their games to be s- to have a reputation of being so tight that people don’t wanna play them anymore.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, they want, they want,

Chris Huang: they want those- So actually- … loose

Zach Elwood: slots as you see all the signs for, loose slots.

Chris Huang: Yeah. These machines, like there is a limit to how, uh, how- Tight or loose

tight- Yeah … that they can be s- Yeah, like they still have a reputation of their own to kind of preserve. Uh, so the casino generally takes about 10%, right? And then 90% is returned to the players, but that 90%, it’s not, it’s not distributed evenly, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Huang: Yeah. Quite often you’ll lose dol- you’ll lose a dollar, you’ll lose, you’ll lose, you’ll lose, and then you win $15, right?

Or you lose, uh, you’ll win 20. And what that means is that, like, um, that money that’s locked into those jackpots is part of that 90% return to player. Right. Right? However, only one person actually gets to collect all that that’s locked in there, right? When I play, when I play that progressive with a must hit buy, when it’s very, very close or it’s very, very big, I’m able to capture a much larger share of the return to player.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Chris Huang: So the casinos, they, they don’t really care. They still take their 10%. They take their cut. The money that I’m making is also not from the casino. The money that I’m making is actually from other

Zach Elwood: players. Right. Which helps explain why they don’t care much. It’s not like it’s nothing, uh, analogous to, like, taking money from the house via blackjack or something.

Yeah.

Chris Huang: It’s not a, uh, zero-sum game or it’s not an adversarial, uh, game. I’m capturing a much larger share of the return to player. Mm-hmm. And so it’s, it’s a little bit hidden. Games have been around where they’re, they’re probably aware of what’s going on, but there’s not a real incentive to, to stop this. I think egregious examples, they, they have done things.

I think, uh, one example has actually been, uh, in Las Vegas. It was at The Venetian. There was a guy called Vegas Matt- He’s a big, uh, YouTuber, and he was actually kicked out of the Venetian High Limit Room-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Huang: uh, because he was, yeah, he was, he was actually chasing a, um, a must-hit buy, uh, over there.

Zach Elwood: Interesting.

Chris Huang: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Okay.

Chris Huang: So casinos, they’ve started to realize that this might actually be a problem, but it, it’s not affecting their bottom line, so-

Zach Elwood: Right. There’s more indirect negatives like you were saying, like it-

Chris Huang: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: takes money away from their best customers and puts in the pocket of the advantage players.

There can be elements of people, like forcing, kind of like intimidating or, or getting people off of machines or in good states, that can be another aspect, right?

Chris Huang: Right. Right. I, I’ve seen examples of this and it’s really, yeah, it’s really bad. Like when you, when you see someone basically lying or kind of coercing someone, it’s like, um-

Zach Elwood: Smoking near them?

Chris Huang: Yeah. They know something’s valuable and they kind of engineer a way to get them to leave their seat. Yeah. Right? To me, that’s pretty, uh, that’s really bad, uh, because it’s, it’s basically stealing. The s- the casino, the slot attendants are … They don’t really know or understand or they don’t really care.

Being a, being an advantage player doesn’t mean that you get to be a bad person or that you get to steal from-

Zach Elwood: Well, yeah, you, like you’re, you’re saying it’s a- Right … it puts it in an entirely different category, like, uh, using a machine after somebody left passively is much different than like, uh, trying to get somebody off- Right.

Right.

Chris Huang: Yeah … a machine. Yeah. Like, yeah, they left of their own free will. They, their lack of understanding. Like I, I’ve seen examples where it’s like, yeah, there’s this old guy playing and then this young guy goes and he says like, “Old, can you teach me how to play?” And they’ll, and they’ll, and he’ll be like

And they’ll put their ticket in.

Zach Elwood: Uh-huh.

Chris Huang: Um, the guy will, “Oh, you can spin once or twice.” And then they sit there and they spin it multiple times until they, they hit it and they walk

Zach Elwood: away. Hmm.

Chris Huang: Right? I can’t even report it. You, you tell the casino what’s going on, you’re like, “I…” They don’t know what’s going on, or-

Zach Elwood: They don’t care much, yeah

Chris Huang: I think this just reminds me of poker where it’s like, don’t tap the glass. Your behavior kind of encourages the casino to maybe crack down or do something about this.

Zach Elwood: Right. Yeah, you’re making- And- … you’re drawing too much attention to yourself maybe. Yeah Aside from the ethics of it, yeah,

Chris Huang: yeah. Right. Like, uh, what you’re doing is actually stealing, and if the casino actually understood what was going on, like, you should be punished.

Yeah. Right? Like, it’s a privilege to do, to, to, to have the life that I have. To take free

Zach Elwood: money.

Chris Huang: Like-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Chris Huang: my job is to go… I go to Vegas and I just walk around all day. I just, I’m able to just kind of print money from the machines. Like, it’s, like, it’s, it’s- You’re like a scavenger- That’s a very simple explanation

you’re like a

Zach Elwood: scavenger of money laying around.

Chris Huang: Yeah. There is, there’s gold left to, left to be mined, and I’m able to kind of extract, um, that gold, right? Yeah. Like, it’s, it’s so silly. All, all you have to do is just work harder. You don’t have to take advantage of people’s ignorance and kind of do these kind of things.

Zach Elwood: Um- You’re, you’re, like, you’re, you’re like a bee- Yeah … uh, flying around from flower to flower collecting, you know, leftover nectar, you know? That’s just a-

Chris Huang: Yeah. … a

Zach Elwood: meta, you know?

Chris Huang: There

Zach Elwood: is- Maybe too poet- That, that, that- Getting too poetic. Maybe that’s not a very good analogy.

Chris Huang: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Uh- Uh, I-

Chris Huang: But I

Zach Elwood: like it. It’s- I was, I was gonna ask you, I, I was gonna get into, like, the day-to-day aspects of it, ’cause when I hung out with you in Atlantic City, you know, a lot of, a lot of what you did was, like, very quick because a, a machine would just be, like, in a state where you would get, like, one or two, you know, uh, spins on it, and then move on because it was just very much temporarily in a small state.

You’d collect, you know, a buck or a few bucks, you know, maybe from it. You know, they, you had an expected value. So a lot of those were really quick hits, and the other ones were, like, the longer term play where you’re like, “Oh, this is in a good state and I’m gonna sit here and play it for, you know, 10, 20, 30 minutes or longer.”

You know, maybe even- Mm-hmm … I wasn’t with you when you played it for hours, but I d- I know that that can happen, too. So that, i- w- is that a good- Yeah … explanation of, like, the day-to-day of what you’re, what you’re going around doing?

Chris Huang: Like most things, like a lot of the work is done before I enter the casino.

I, I’m not trying to figure out these games, uh, while I’m at the casino. Uh, but similar to poker, there’s, uh, in poker there’s this off the table work where you’re kind of studying and doing the, your homework and work, uh, before entering the casino, because, yeah, you enter the casino very prepared. I, I know the location of the machine, I know exactly, uh, you know, how to play it, if it’s fa- like if it’s a very short play, how much to-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you know a lot of games from your years of doing this.

You know what the states- Yeah … of them are very quickly from, from looking at them. Yeah. And it’s-

Chris Huang: So, yeah, that’s right. I, I’ve been doing this for a while, and so it’s just like, it’s like- Second nature … you, you want to be very efficient. So I’m in Las Vegas. If I’m on a strip or downtown Fremont, I’m trying to make one big circle to cover as many, uh, casinos in one loop as possible without, uh, without returning to the same casino, right?

There, there’s plays to be found after people have played them.

Zach Elwood: Right. A good amount of, uh, churn or whatever, yeah, of the machine.

Chris Huang: Yeah. There, there has to be, there has to be, uh, turnover. Uh, that’s- Turnover … that’s the term that I like to use. Um, there needs to be turnover from other players to play it. So, uh, there’s no reason to just keep on looping in the same casino, uh, unless, unless you’re in a small market.

So that, that, that’s one of the, the big things in Las Ve- like why I, I spend the most time… The reason why I’m in Las Vegas most of the time is, um, one is I have free rooms, which is which is, which is, which is actually, I am kind of beating the casino that way. I do get comped rooms from, uh, multiple properties.

Zach Elwood: Which he- which helps explain why it’s sometimes okay to play at a slight disadvantage because you’re getting the comp points anyway. So it’s like- Yeah, that’s right … if it’s, if it’s near break even, that’s, that’s good for you. Yeah.

Chris Huang: So there, there’s a few benefits from, uh, playing a lot of slots is you get, you get the comps, so free meals, free rooms, free cruises.

Um, so if you value that, if you play at 99% or 98%, um, that’s okay because you’ll, you’ll get a rebate. They’ll give you an offer. Uh, they’ll be like, “Oh, okay, you, you get, you know, $100 or $1,000 in free play, uh, in the future,” or something like that, right? So that, that kind of, uh, is a part of your calculation, and it’s different for all people.

Like for me, I get… I actually have multiple cruise offers from multiple casinos, and I rarely use them because, um, I just don’t like cruises. So they’re they’re worth, they’re worth nothing to me. But for someone else, it’s like they’ll, they’ll, they’ll take the… They’ll, they’ll go on cruises, um, all the time.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Huang: So the, the day today, yeah, so, like there, there’s a lot of walking. I’m just, I’m trying to hit as many casinos as possible. Um- Get

Zach Elwood: some good

Chris Huang: steps in Yeah. So generally I get 10 to 15,000 steps, uh, in a day. And, um, yeah, it’s str- it’s, it’s strange. It’s like you’re actually really active. Uh, I have different routes and it’s, it…

You’re, you’re kind of like treasure hunting- Mm-hmm … which is, which is kind of fun. You’re, you’re actively looking for… Like, a lot of slot players actually, uh, also used to be, uh, poker players, similar to me. Hmm. Uh, and, uh, you don’t just have to sit around waiting for cards or, uh, dealing with other people.

You can go at your leisure and kind of search and hunt for new slots, slot plays.

Zach Elwood: The, um, it was kind of interesting when you were pointing out that it’s really easy for you to recognize, or for anybody to recognize advantage players and, uh, advantage slot players because they’re the people walking around with a purpose in the, a- amongst the slot rooms.

They’ll, they’ll, they’ll go up to the slot machines and, like, do what you call- Yeah … playing the piano and then move on, right? Right,

Chris Huang: right.

Zach Elwood: Dun, dun, dun, dun. What’s the, what’s the playing the piano thing?

Chris Huang: Uh, yeah, so playing the piano, like certain machines you have to, um, there’s different screens, so you have to change the bet sizes or you have to change the denomination.

And the machines, uh, are sometimes they’re really, really loud. This is when I actually lower the volume quite often on these machines. Oh, before you check- Like- … the different screens? Yeah, yeah, because- I see … I’m, like, I’m, I’m a little, like, so I, I come from a more traditional background of gambling where I did, um, blackjack, and card counting, and poker.

I’m, I’m much- You don’t wanna draw attention to yourself. I wanna be, I wanna be a ninja. Yeah. Basically, I wanna be a ninja where no one notices me, and I’m in and out, and I’ve got the money. No one knows I’m- I’ve won anything, right? I’m not trying to attract attention. I see other slot hustlers, they’ll just check machines right next to other people, and I think that’s, one, that’s very rude.

Um, but also, like, you’re… Yeah, it’s just very strange behavior, and so like for, like, I, I, I never do anything like that because, yeah, I just- It

Zach Elwood: kind of, it kind of reminds me of, uh, it’s like poker players talking strategy at the table. It’s, like, not good for business. Right. Yeah. It’s not good for business.

Yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah. I, I, I see that, and I just, I cringe a little bit. I’m just like, especially in a market like Las Vegas, there’s like, there’s 1,000, there’s 1,000 other machines to check. You don’t have to be so thorough, and to go right next to another person and just, like, play the piano, dun, dun, dun, dun. And they’re, they’re just like, “What the hell is this guy doing?”

Right?

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah. Like, I, I- Yeah, that makes, it

Zach Elwood: makes them wonder, like, “Hey, uh, sh- could I be playing these better?” You know?

Chris Huang: Yeah. It just, it just attracts a bit of attention. And playing the piano, like, um, yeah, like, it, it’s kind of necessary for some games. Um, there’s more complicated versions where some games you actually, you have to put a ticket in-

Zach Elwood: Oh

Chris Huang: in order to, um, change the bet sizes or, um, to get more information.

Zach Elwood: To your point, though, yeah, it’s kinda interesting ’cause it’s, like, nobody, nobody else pretty much except an advantage player is, like, cycling through the different screens, checking the different states, right? Like, hard- basically hardly anybody’s doing that.

Yeah.

Chris Huang: For me, uh, when I, when I do see another, uh, advantage player or hustler, I, I just, I walk in a different direction, right? I don’t wanna interact with them. Uh, more importantly, I don’t wanna give any information away to them, you know. There’s different levels of skill level or knowledge, and I, I consider myself to be- Very knowledgeable o- on the slot machines.

So I don’t, like, there are certain machines where I’ll only check if I know the coast is clear. The market or the competition just doesn’t, isn’t aware of that machine or what to look for, how to play it. And I, I take- They don’t wanna clue, clue them in, yeah. Yeah, I take extra effort to kind of make sure that they don’t figure out because of me.

I treat everything as kind of adversarial, zero-sum game. I don’t wanna give any information to anyone, uh, just out of principle. It’s like, you’re not gonna get it for free from me. You’re gonna have to work for it.

Zach Elwood: Well, yeah, it’s like, you know, amongst a bunch of vultures, like, you don’t really wanna give away your you know, it’s like any, any game with ad-

Chris Huang: Yeah

Zach Elwood: edges, you don’t wanna, uh-

Chris Huang: Yeah, you don’t, you don’t wanna give your edge away. That’s exactly right.

Zach Elwood: So, the, I was gonna ask you about the, the, the camaraderie versus the competition aspect. Are, are, you know, do people make friends with other advantage players or, or how does that happen?

Chris Huang: Yeah. So I think it really depends on your market Um, so in Las Vegas there’s actually a really good problem in that there’s too many casinos.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Huang: And there’s so many casinos- There’s plenty of action. Yeah … in that you’re not gonna run out of casinos to check. Um, you’re so- You don’t have to stay in the same place for, uh… Yeah, so you can vary your rou- your routine or where you go and all that.

Zach Elwood: So you can afford to be more friendly.

Chris Huang: Yeah, right.

But in smaller markets, like if you’re in a city and there’s only one casino, it’s just the same people there every day.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Chris Huang: Right?

Zach Elwood: I would imagine it’s like- And- … fighting over scraps. You get a little bit more territorial and aggressive with each other and that kind of thing.

Chris Huang: Yeah. So actually when I’m in New York, I don’t, I…

There’s, uh, we have, um, we have the Resorts World in Jamaica, or the, the horse track. I, I, I don’t go. There are, um, Asian hustlers that are there all day long, and they have nothing better to do but sit there and I, I am not gonna go and compete with them. I’m not… Uh, my edge is not from working much harder than other people or like, you know, putting long hours.

It’s more from, uh, the knowledge. Like, like actually, like this is what happened in Las Vegas, over time there’s a lot of, there’s actually a lot of machines that I don’t check anymore. Like cer- certain games are just really obvious and very easy to figure out. They’re checked over constantly. In, in a market like Las Vegas, it, it’s not worth my time to check those machines.

Your, your chance of finding anything is just, it’s just much, it’s just much more rare. And so I’ve kind of specialized, over time I’ve specialized in which you figure out the new games or you figure out, um, like yeah, you figure out valuable games and you focus on that. And that’s, that’s a, it’s kind of a luxury where that’s a, you can do that in Las Vegas in that market.

When, when you’re thinking about advantage play or like, or winning in gambling, you have to look at it as a market and how do I wanna participate in this market? I am not trying to participate by outworking other people who are working very hard. It’s like I’m trying to outsmart them.

Zach Elwood: Work smarter and…

Yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah. Not harder.

Zach Elwood: When it comes to the risks involved, uh, you know, the one obvious risk that occurred to me was You know, say you’re, you judge a machine to be in a positive EV state, but you know it’s gonna take a while to pay off, right? Yeah. Um, there’s, there’s always gonna be that element of chance as to when it pays off.

And so theoretically you can imagine either the machine’s not in, actually in a positive EV state as, as you thought, or for whatever reason through chance it takes a long time to pay off, and you end up sitting there for hours and, and you’re, you’re, you’re burning up cash, and you’re starting to wonder, like, “Is this thing really gonna pay off?

Was it a positive EV play?” How do you, how do you make those decisions for, like, the things that you know are gonna take longer? Do you know … Do you make the decision going in, like, “I’m gonna commit to this until it pays off,” and then you have to have plans of, like, playing it continuously or maybe getting help?

May- maybe you can talk a little bit about that, that risk- Yeah … or, or those edge cases.

Chris Huang: I think anyone that’s been doing slots for a while has this, uh, horror story where they misjudged the play. I, I remember when I, when I first figured out some things, you think it’s easy money. But, like, your knowledge is incomplete.

You are overconfident or you overestimated what it would take to actually play this game, or what it would take to- Or maybe, or

Zach Elwood: maybe they changed it, maybe theoretically. That

Chris Huang: they changed- Yeah … the machine maybe. Yeah. That’s, that’s, that’s, that’s a really good point. So I’ll tell- You can’t see that coming sometimes,

Zach Elwood: yeah.

Chris Huang: I’ll tell you one, i- one example. So my father was with me in Las Vegas. Um, so my father, he, he doesn’t really approve of me gambling, or he, he, he doesn’t like that aspect of it. He, he’s, he’s, he’s come around. But, um, so he was with me, and there was, there was a specific machine, we were just crushing it for, like, like a month.

That same machine was being installed in a bunch of places, and I was like, “Oh, great. This is, this is fantastic. Like, we’re just gonna print more money.” And, uh, what happened was, yeah, they adjusted the machine somehow. And so I was playing the same game, my, my criteria was still the same, and I just started losing, I started losing a lot of money.

But, like, you have to take a lot of punishment before you actually realize, “Oh, okay, something has changed.” Right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Huang: Because for an entire month I was just printing money, and I wa- I was doing so great.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you’re like, “Maybe it’s just evening out,” or, you know, maybe the- Yeah … maybe the, the long

Chris Huang: run’s gonna mean- It really has to hit you over the head before you kinda give up, and you’re like, “Oh, okay, stupid.”

Uh

Zach Elwood: It’s like playing a really bad poker player, and all of a sudden he’s beating you, and you’re like, “Well, it makes-” Right, right. “I gotta ke- I wanna keep playing.” Yeah. I mean, he can’t have suddenly gotten good. Like, no, like, yeah.

Chris Huang: There are these long plays that can take hours, it, you have to be prepared. ‘Cause all of us, uh, that’s been doing this for a while has, has hit a situation where we ran out of money. Either call someone at 2:00 AM in the morning and be like, “Hey, I need you to, I need you to come and bring money to me,” right?

Or you actually had to leave the play. And that’s like, that’s like, that’s like the worst outcome, right? Because basically, um, you found a play and it was, uh, it was a positive play, and then you put more money in it so you actually grow, the must-buy actually gets closer- … or the, the reward gets bigger.

Zach Elwood: Right. You’re

Chris Huang: closer to it. And then you run outta money, and then you have to give it, you have to give it to somebody else.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Chris Huang: Right? So those are lessons that you have to learn. If I’m tackling a big play that, that I expect to take hours, I try to have a partner with me So I’m gonna have a partner, we can switch, do bathroom breaks.

Um, like, like again, act- and I have to make sure, like, okay, do I have enough money on me? What’s the plan if I run out of money? Right. What’s the backup plan?

Zach Elwood: Yeah, what’s, what’s the maximum I put in before I give up maybe too? Like, do you have to think about that?

Chris Huang: Right. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, there are certain progressives that you should never chase.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Huang: Or you have, like, a… There’s like, okay, I’m only… Like, after I lose 1,000, I’m gonna give up on this. Um, there’s, there’s very high risk, high variance plays like that. The, the, the problem is, is when you’re up against a new game where you don’t have much information, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Huang: Um, that’s when- Other people, other

Zach Elwood: people haven’t gathered it in the various books and websites about the game, that

Chris Huang: game.

Yeah, where, where there’s no guide on it-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Chris Huang: where there’s no information on it. It’s again, sometimes it’s like it’s overconfidence. You’re like, “Oh, this game is similar to this other game, and so I should play it the same way,” right? And that’s, that’s how you learn. You get punished, and you’re like, “Oh, okay.”

Like, that

Zach Elwood: was a mistake. Yeah, and

Chris Huang: I,

Zach Elwood: I would imagine like, uh… I mean, that’s where really the experience pays off, ’cause I imagine there’s some inexperienced people that don’t know as much as they think they do, and they get in those kinds of spots, and then, then they end up, you know, getting, getting burned a bit.

And, you know, the other thing that I would imagine too is, like, I’d imagine there’s a lot of people that get into advantage slot play that are kind of, like, pretty kind of addicted to gambling. And so th- if they’re not disciplined, they’re not gonna do, do very well at it either. You know, it’s kind of like they pursue it, but they still have weaknesses.

Like, they might play too long and justify it to themselves, or I imagine it’s kind of rare for advantage players to be, even amongst advantage players, to be, like, doing quite as well as they could. Like, I… You strike me as very professional in it, but I imagine there’s many people that have various leaks and weaknesses and don’t put in the time of studying and all these kinds of things, yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah. I think this, this applies to all gambling. What, what’s interesting about gambling is that there’s different skills to work on or to develop. And so discipline is one part of it, and the math is another part of it. There’s a lot of things to work on. A lo- discipline is probably the most common pitfall that you see.

You see, you see people like they’re too ambitious or this happens a lot where you have a little bit of knowledge, but having a little bit of knowledge is actually the most dangerous situation because you’re like, “Oh, I know how this works.” And then you tackle a big play and then you just, you, you lose your entire bankroll.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. What they call the, the kind of the Dunning-Kruger thing of overestimating your intelligence and such. Yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah. And people, people get punished. So yeah, quite often, um, a lot– people don’t succeed. It’s not like, it’s not just knowledge, but it is, it is a, it is a bit of discipline. Like-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Chris Huang: uh, when you get punished, you actually learn the lessons from that, from that, uh, punishment, right?

Uh, and a lot of people don’t. They’re just like, “Oh, it’s just a fluke.” And they, they attempt it again, and then and then they’re, they’re totally bankrupt, right?

Zach Elwood: Yeah. You gotta learn from your, from the pain. Yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, for sure. In any, in any pursuit really, it’s like you gotta, you gotta absorb the learnings from the failures and the pain.

Yeah. I was curious, obviously, uh, what you do is an unusual and rare, um, way to make a living. Do, do you see yourself ever, um, taking a, a so-called normal job and… Or, uh, you know, are you, are you gonna do this for quite a while?

Chris Huang: Before this podcast, I actually, I did a timeline of my, um, of my career. Hmm. And it re- it really kind of s- shocked me when it was like, oh, I’ve been doing this for, like, eight to nine years.

Yeah, what I usually tell people is I’ve been doing this for five years, and then I never update that number. It’s like, yeah, it t- it takes a lot of, um… There’s a lot of responsibility to… It’s kind of like running your own business. Like, you have to make all the decisions-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Chris Huang: take all the risk. It’s not just the hard decisions, you have to make the easy decisions and the medium decisions, right?

It’s a lot of decisions. So there’s, there’s a lot of… I’m just kind of used to, I trust, I trust my own judgment. I, I don’t have to get appro- Like, I, I, yeah, I don’t think I could have regular job where… I think the moment someone above me told me to do something that I disagreed with and I thought was dumb, I would just tell them that.

Like, “You’re an idiot.” Like, “That’s, like, we shouldn’t do that.” You’re just used to a certain level of independence and responsibility.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Huang: And I don’t, I don’t think I could ever, like… It, it would take a lot of money to, to get me to like-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Huang: put up with tell, someone else telling me, uh. But like, if, if, if it was someone that I respected and that had, that I, that was clearly was a lot smarter than me and that there’s trust, I, I could see that.

But it’s just, um, yeah, you’ve been doing this for, for, for eight, nine years. You’re not really gonna… Like, uh, the thing is, like, I’m not, I’m not willing to put up with bullshit. Right? Because as a professional gambler, uh, you can’t afford to bullshit other people.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. You like-

Chris Huang: Like-

Zach Elwood: You like making

Chris Huang: optimal- When-

Zach Elwood: decisions. Yeah.

Chris Huang: Yeah. When, when there’s a mistake, like, it, it comes out of my paycheck. Yeah. Like, uh, there’s, there’s real consequences for me. So, you know, I think for, for a regular job, it’s like there’s a lot of bullshit because there’s just the consequences, like, you’re still gonna get paid your salary and no one’s gonna

Like, there’s no real consequences, right? So if you, if you fudge the numbers or, you know, if you claim that you did the work and you, like, you really just half-assed it, like, there’s not much, right? But like, if, um, if I was to … Like, if I was lying to myself or telling other people that I was working hard and I actually didn’t work hard, like, I’d just make less money.

Or be like, you know. All of the, all of the, the punishment or the bad effects, it, it, like, it affects me. So, like, I, I just, I don’t … There’s no, there’s no room or space for bullshit for me. And I, I, I feel like in a more corporate or just like a regular job, there’s just a lot of that. You know, I just, I, I wouldn’t be able to help myself.

But like, yeah, like, like I think either- What about,

Zach Elwood: what about, what about my advice for, uh, like turning down the Care knob thing, uh, you know?

Chris Huang: Yeah, yeah. Like, it would, it would just, it would have to, it would take a lot of money or like it would take like a real good reason for me to kind of be able to put up with that.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, yeah.

Chris Huang: Like yeah. I know

Zach Elwood: at that point I, I like see- But I get your point. I, I can see your … I mean, I see, I get your point of view. It’s like back when I, when I was playing poker when I was younger, and o- one of the reasons I was really into poker was like you’re doing your own thing, you’re not relying on anybody else, you know?

And I, there is something very attractive about that. And also the- Yeah … the being, you know, there is a lot of bullshit when you work with other people, that’s for sure. That’s like part of the, uh- Yeah … you know, learning. Y- you ha- have, you ha- you definitely have to h- tolerate a lot of stuff that you disagree with and think is like arbitrary or bad or whatever.

Yeah, yeah.

Chris Huang: Being a professional poker player or a gambler, it’s very romantic.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Huang: But there is a lot of responsibility and work that comes with

Zach Elwood: it. It’s a decision overload- Yeah … really. It’s like, I mean, I found that from, you know, whether it was doing, whether it was playing poker or whether it was like doing my own business stuff, you know?

It was like it’s a lot of decision fatigue for me, and I- Yeah … and it’s like there, there’s something nice about that, but it’s also can be quite, uh, tiring ’cause you’re always basically having to think all, everything through and you’re making, you’re making decisions that matter literally many times a day, which is like something that most people You know, really don’t do, I don’t think, in most nor- you know, most everyday jobs.

You’re, you’re not making like a bunch of decisions that impact you directly every day, right? Yeah.

Chris Huang: It’s just the, the, the decisions all matter. And so you just kind of c- get accustomed to making those hard decisions. And, and, and also, w- with those hard decisions comes responsibility, right?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Huang: And so you just kind of, yeah.

I, I, I, I can’t take bullshit. Like, I’ll just call people out because it’s just like, one, I’m not impressed, and two, just because you’re not getting punished for, for it, doesn’t mean that like it’s right, like that you can just say this bullshit. Like, like always, don’t try to sell me bullshit, right? Give it to somebody else, I don’t care.

I don’t want it. So get, okay,

Zach Elwood: so you’re allergic to the bullshit- … basically is what a way to put it. Um, okay, thanks Chris. Yeah. This, this has been great. Um, anything else you wanna share before we’re, before we sign off?

Chris Huang: I am planning on making, uh, a YouTube channel, and I haven’t figured out the name yet, but it’s going to be, uh, about gambling education.

I think, um, gambling has become really mainstream with, um, Cal-Shoe, with the sports betting. They, the industry, they, they promise a lot of ways to win, right? You’re constantly, there’s, you know, you could win thousands of dollars, you could win a big parlay and all that. Uh, but there’s actually, yeah, like people gamble without any knowledge or any preparation or any study, right?

And if you’re, if you don’t actually put the work in and actually learn and figure these things out, you’re just, um, yeah, you’re gonna, you’re gonna lose. There’s, the games are, are rigged. So I think that there is a space for, um, for gambling education. When, when people listen to your podcast, I’m gonna work hard to make sure that there’s a, uh, a video ready for them that they can visit.

Zach Elwood: This is awesome. Thanks, Chris, for y- for your, uh, knowledge dropping. Appreciate it.

Chris Huang: No, it was great. I, I, I really enjoyed this, Zach. And it was great. I, I think this was very special in that you came to me to Atlantic City to actually do a trip. I don’t think, I probably as a, as a podcaster, I don’t think you’ve ever done that.

Zach Elwood: That’s only one of two times I did something in the real world for like, kind of like… But a- but anyway, regardless of, of the podcast, I would’ve just done it ’cause I wa- I was interested. Yeah. You know, like so, yeah. It was-

Chris Huang: But I, I just felt like, um, you coming with me, it a- allowed to have a better conversation.

Um,

Zach Elwood: but- No, it was cool to see it in person and yeah, and I’m gonna share some video I got. But yeah, no, it was interesting to see what you did in, in person, and it was, it was pretty cool

That was a talk with Chris Huang, and you can learn more about him at his recently started youtube channel Gambling Education with Chris. I’ll have a link to his youtube for the entry for this episode at my site behavior-podcast.com and in the description for the youtube version of this episode. 

Again, if you’re listening to this on audio, just a note that I’ll have some video at the end of the youtube version of this episode of me hanging out with Chris in Atlantic City and watching him do his thing. 

Categories
podcast

Private investigator on reading and manipulating people, eliciting info, and more

A talk with Andrew Thompson, a New York City-area private investigator and a researcher of criminal behavior and interrogation techniques. Andrew shares how he gets people talking while lacking the authority and command of a police badge, and what studying FBI crime cases and interrogations taught him about linguistic clues to deception in people’s stories. We also discuss his research into criminal personality categories and how that may be tied to linguistic patterns. We discuss how mistaking signs of anxiety for guilt or deception can send investigators down very wrong paths; and how aggressive questioning can contribute to false confessions and other negative outcomes. We also discuss why appearing uninterested in an important revelation from someone can sometimes encourage them to reveal more, and other tips on influencing and manipulating people in order to achieve investigative results.

Episode details:

Resources related to or mentioned in this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts are generated automatically and will contain errors)

Andrew Thompson: The other thing that John Jay [College] had, I don’t think it has anymore, but they had a collaborative, uh, agreement with the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, the sort of profiling unit, where certain researchers were given access to this massive vault of FBI files, closed FBI cases. It was housed on, in the college in a secure room. And so some of us, and I was lucky to be among them, got access to that to conduct research using those files. And they were just raw closed case files, um, of everything from terrorism cases, serial killers, uh, contract killers, all, all sorts of, you know, uh, child, uh, molestation cases, all sorts of stuff And so my big, my thesis, and that turned into some published research, was on looking at sort of the linguistic behaviors of sexually motivated homicide offenders during their interrogation when they were lying and telling the truth.

So we found that a lot of the techniques that, and a lot of the, the potential cues for deception that had been developed and empirically supported didn’t hold water in our sample. That being said, a couple of potential deceptive cues did come out in those studies as relevant.

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with Andrew Thompson, a New York City private investigator and a criminal behavior researcher. 

This is the People Who Read People podcast, a podcast aimed at better understanding people. It’s hosted by me, Zachary Elwood. You can learn more about this show and subscribe to get updates, at behavior-podcast.com. 

I had this talk with Andrew Thompson back in June, four months ago. I’ll say that this was one of my favorite talks I’ve done for this podcast. One reason I wanted to talk to Andrew was because I’m currently doing research for my book, which will be called Read People For Real, nad which I hope will be a helpful resource for getting quick reads of people. It will largely focus on the things people say, and it will push back against false and misleading claims and myths in the “behavior expert” space. As part of my efforts for this podcast, and for that book, I’d been wanting to talk to someone in the private investigation space for a while, and so this talk with Andrew got me thinking about a wide range of things that I found very interesting, and which helped me define what I wanted to talk about with my book. Some of the topics Andrew and I discuss include: 

  • The methods private investigators use to persuade people to reveal information, and why that approach has to be much more persuasive and subtle due to lacking the authority of a police badge.
  • What Andrew’s research into real murder interrogations reveals about lying, mental effort, and the details people include in their stories.
  • His research into criminal personality types and how that might link up to linguistic patterns  
  • How mistaking anxiety for deception or guilt can lead to confirmation bias, aggressive questioning, and false confessions.
  • Why acting nonchalant when sources reveal crucial information can help an investigator learn more.
  • Why statement verifiability is such a big clue to whether someone is lying or telling the truth 

A bit more about Andrew: he’s a private investigator with over 15 years of international experience, across a range of criminal, civil, and corporate matters that include serial homicide and multinational securities fraud. He earned his master’s degree in forensic psychology at John Jay College, where he developed investigative interviewing techniques in collaboration with the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and US government’s joint High Value Detainee Interrogation Group. His research has been published in multiple academic and professional journals. He’s also an advisory council member on Project Aletheia, an organization of leading criminal interview researchers and practitioners whose goal is to advance evidence-based interview techniques. 

On a previous episode earlier this year, I interviewed Maria Hartwig and Christian Cory, who are leaders of Project Aletheia; we talked about science-based criminal interviewing and interrogation. Also it might be worth noting that Andrew studied with Maria at John Jay College, and did some research with her there. 

You can find a transcript for this talk, and get links to papers and other resources we mention in this talk, at my site behavior-podcast.com. 

I did remove the first few minutes of Andrew and I’s talk. I’ll mention some of the points from that, just because Andrew does allude to that later. Andrew told me about him being from Canada, and said he had several family members who were in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that was a vocation that he thought from a young age he might wind up in. But in college he developed an interest in research and that led him to pursue graduate studies in forensic psychology at John Jay College. Then he eventually settled in the U.S. and pursued private investigation work. 

Okay here’s the talk with Andrew Thompson. 

Zach Elwood: Hi, Andrew. Thanks for joining me.

Andrew Thompson: Hey, Zach. Thanks so much for having me on. It’s great

Zach Elwood: I know that the investigative, private investigative field can be quite wide, and, uh, having moved to New York recently, New York City, I, I learned about all of these different roles that were available, you know, private, corporate, uh, security and, and investigative related work, you know, law firm related work and, and I’m curious what kinds of things have you done over the years, uh, out of all those various things you can do in those re- realms?

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. So I mean, that’s one of the great things about PI work, right? Is that it carries such a wide swath of, of opportunities and, you know, people tend to specialize, right? So you can be the infidelity people who go out and do surveil- or insurance guys who go out and do surveillance, and you can go all the way out over to the other side, which is like more business intelligence, kinda closer to, you know, legal corporate espionage type work.

I’ve done kind of a smattering of, of almost everything. I haven’t done the, the cheating spouse stuff. Um, probably make more money if I did, but, uh, I’ve done kind of everything from sort of plaintiff civil lawsuit type investigative work, um, to working directly for law firms doing like multinational securities fraud cases, to private investigations doing primarily criminal defense work in the state and federal systems, doing stuff like, you know, murder for hire cases, rapes, robberies, um, your garden variety murders, gang stuff, that kind of thing.

Zach Elwood: What would, what would you say, uh, w- what are some of the major differences between the private investigative work and more law enforcement related in- investigative work?

Andrew Thompson: I think PI work is in an, you’re in an interesting position, right? Because you… Police officers have certain sort of implicit and explicit authorities and sort of threats that they can levy just by, you know, not even consciously, but just by way of having a badge, right?

You kind of feel compelled to talk to a police officer a lot of the time. PIs have none of that, right? Like I have no authority. I can… I have, pose no threat to you if you decide not to talk to me. So in that way, we’re probably, our tactics are more situated probably more closely to like a CIA officer. I know you’ve interviewed a, a couple of those guys.

But on that end of it, we don’t have the same resources and we don’t have the same permissions, right? We’re not allowed to go break the law. Uh, whereas like that’s what a CIA officer does, right? At least in foreign countries. So you’re sort of stuck in this middle ground where you have to be very persuasive, uh, very manipulative at times to make up for the fact that we don’t have a badge and we don’t have the resources at play.

But at the same time, you don’t have all the freedoms that, that, you know, an intelligence officer would have going out and recruiting sources- Mm … for the, for the government.

Zach Elwood: Do some examples come to mind of the types of situations where you have to be super persuasive and/or manipulative to get people to talk to you?

Andrew Thompson: One case, uh, in particular, we had a, a situation where for some kind of important but m- mostly boring reasons, we had to figure out what a hospital used for their sharps containers, right? The boxes where they, like, put needles and, and sort of other bio threats in when they’re discarding them And basically a nurse had grabbed a knife off of a, a murder suspect and thrown the knife in the sharps box.

Cops come, no one can find a key for it, uh, so the cops rip it off the wall, rip it open, and take custody of the knife into evidence. So we had to figure out sort of like, okay, well, who owns the sharps container, right? ‘Cause we’re trying to determine whether or not the cops should’ve gotten a search warrant before opening this thing up.

But the hospital was not willing to give us any information. Hmm. So you have to sort of go around it, right? The, the hospital system had a good relationship with the police, and so they were responding to subpoenas, but not in any helpful kind of way. Hmm. So ultimately what we did is I created a fake sort of medical company, like a medical practice that I was setting, I was, quote-unquote, “setting up” and I was able to figure out what the company that made the, the sharps container was, and I called them up as a potential new client and had them sell me on this sharps container and sort of said like, “Oh, you know, a couple of the practitioners at this new practice I’m standing up worked at this hospital during this time period and they really loved that sharps container, and they really loved the, how your process worked, and so can we get that exact model and how does that work, and can you tell me about it?”

And ultimately what it turned out was not only did the hospital not own those sharps containers, they were like leased essentially, they didn’t have access to them because it was like a full service kind of deal where like this company, this vendor would come in and empty them and replace them. Hmm. So like the nurses and medical staff couldn’t have consented to the cops getting into it even if they wanted to.

Hmm. Um, and so that ended up going to an evidentiary hearing and ended up with a very favorable sort of result for the, the defendant in that case. Whereas if you’re a cop, right, you just… I mean, in this situation you would just literally ask them and they would give you the information, but you know, if they were slightly more aggressive, they could get a search warrant or, or a, or a subpoena for it that they would comply with.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, so yeah, you basically have to be more persuasive and more creative in general with your approaches because of that.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, and it, it can go either way, right? So like listen, especially, you know, we live in New York, you know, people have, are probably more anti-cop here than in lots of places in the country, so sometimes you can play on that and maybe I get the benefit of the doubt versus a police officer in certain ways.

Hmm. Mm-hmm. But as a general rule, I have to sort of be a little more creative in how I go out and get information. Same with getting access to places, right? Like we’ve had cases where we’re trying to develop information on people who live in very secure sort of high worth buildings. And so you have to get past them, right?

If you’re a cop, you just walk up and flash your badge and say, “I’m going up to floor 17 to see Mr. Smith.” Mm. If I do that- … just walk up and flash my, you know, my PI creds or whatever, the security guard’s probably gonna tell me to go pound sand, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So I have to come up with some sort of either cover to get under there under a ruse, or I have to find some way to persuade the security guard to let me by knowing who I am.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Andrew Thompson: So it’s a lot more of a softer touch as a general rule.

Zach Elwood: I would imagine those skills, like the skills you develop doing that, like those would be super useful if you were a cop too, but cops don’t, probably don’t, aren’t forced to develop that skill as much I would imagine. Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, my… Listen, I have lots of friends that are cops.

I’ve, I’ve worked with lots of colleagues that are cops, both like with them and on the other side of the aisle who are very, very good at their job and very talented. My experience has been though that guys who were police officers and come over to the private sector to do PI work tend to struggle at first because of that reason, right?

They get really frustrated that people just say no to them or they don’t have the same… It’s not quite as easy, right? You have to be a little softer with people. Mm-hmm. Um, you have to be a little more creative. And so it, it is a definitely a different animal when you come on this side. But, you know, like, uh, Patrick Skinner, I don’t know if you know who he is, he was a CIA case officer and then rolled back his cover and became a cop.

He’s, he’s now a detective in Atlanta, I think. Hmm. Or Savannah. Maybe Savannah. Um, he’s big on Twitter. You know, he, his big thing he says all the time when he’s teaching new police officers is like, “How would you approach this scene if you weren’t a cop? If you didn’t have a gun and a badge, what would you do when you rolled up on scene?”

Hmm. And so I agree with you. I think like if more police officers had that attitude or had that sort of mindset, I think you would find they’d actually be a lot more effective.

Zach Elwood: And, uh, is it true part of the skill too is developing a really good network of ways to get information? Uh, and uh, it seems like that’s even more valuable too as a, a private investigator.

Am I, am I right on that?

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. In terms of like, like behaviorally, like getting like elicitation or more like developing groups of-

Zach Elwood: Like, uh, people around town that know things or in the, in the industry that can hook you up with various pieces of information basically. Sort of like more like a jour- like a journalist does almost.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, totally. Right. Depending on the, you know, depending on the type of case you’re working, right? You know, if you’re working a murder, certainly if you can develop like, you know, you’re working a gang murder in like a housing project, you certainly as the only white guy can’t be probably walking in there and pr- being very effective at questioning people, uh, mostly ’cause they probably think you’re a cop.

Um, so you work through intermediaries and so it’s, it’s about making friends however you can. And then more on like the, the some of the other stuff I’ve done, like the securities fraud stuff, yeah, a lot of these cases are international, right? So they’re pro- the firm is probably not gonna be willing to fly me out to rural Mongolia to like knock on doors related to like a goldmine investigation there.

I’m working with NGOs and working with local workers and looking e- sometimes even with local government officials that I can sort of get my hooks into and have them do a lot of the fact-finding for me and bring people to me, both because it’s more effective and also ’cause it’s safer for the source, right?

Rather than interacting with me directly.

Zach Elwood: Taking a step, uh, backwards a bit, uh, I was curious, did you know from a young age that you wanted to do this kind of work? Was there, was there some, were there some, um, experiences that early on got you really interested in this kind of work?

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. Yeah. So like, like I already kinda touched on the fact that I, I grew up along or along or around a lot of mounties.

Um, that was always kinda what I wanted to do. And then I’ve also… I was involved in martial arts from a very young age, um, and kinda from like five or six years old, and kinda grew up still doing it, right? I sort of never stopped, um, and became fairly good at it. I was a, a national karate champion, and I was a member of the nat- the Canadian national team for five years.

Mm. And so particularly when it comes to like b- behavioral analysis and sort of reading people, you know, it’s, it’s really cliche to say like fighting’s a mental game, but it, it kind of is. Mm-hmm. And you know, I think with a lot of problems with deception detection stuff is that people don’t get good feedback, right?

So cops think they’re maybe really proficient in it because they never really learn when they’ve been lied to, or it’s harder to figure out when you’ve been lied to at like a traffic stop or something. In a fight, it’s immediately apparent when someone has faked you out. Mm. Um, and you get typically very immediate and very painful feedback when you mess up.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Um, so that makes you a very fast student in that regard. Yeah. So that was part of it, and certainly the, the sort of ethos that goes along with growing up in martial arts of wanting to defend people and, and protect people and that sort of thing also played into it- Mm-hmm … um, quite a bit.

Zach Elwood: You’ve done some interesting research at, uh, John Jay and maybe other places. Do you wanna talk about what has stood out to you as some of the more interesting, uh, research you’ve done maybe in investigative or behavior-related spaces?

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. So yeah, so like I said, I, I went to John Jay ’cause it really is the, the best in, at least in North America.

And actually I know that you just recently, uh, interviewed Dr. Hartwig. Uh, so Dr. Hartwig was my graduate supervisor. I was in– I came to New York specifically to work under her and was really- Hmm … lucky to get to. The other thing that John Jay had, I don’t think it has anymore, but they had a collaborative, uh, agreement with the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, the sort of profiling unit, where certain researchers were given access to this massive vault of FBI files, closed FBI cases.

Um, it was housed on, in the college in a secure room. And so some of us, and I was lucky to be among them, got access to that to conduct research using those files. And they were just raw closed case files, um, of everything from terrorism cases, serial killers, uh, contract killers, all, all sorts of, you know, uh, child, uh, molestation cases, all sorts of stuff And so my big, my thesis, and that turned into some published research, was on looking at sort of the linguistic behaviors of sexually motivated homicide offenders during their interrogation when they were lying and telling the truth.

So, you know, I’m sure you know the, the biggest issue with deception research a lot of the times is that there’s not a lot of sort of external validity, right? A lot of the research is based on college kids lying or not lying in certain experimental paradigms. This was the largest study to look at real world high stakes interrogations.

Hmm. Um, and it was also the only study, to my knowledge, to look at only a s- like, only murderers, and even within that, only sexually motivated murderers. Because the, you know, one of the ideas is that someone who’s arrested for a theft and someone who’s arrested for a sexual serial murder are probably very different people.

Both the stakes are very different inside the interrogation. But also- Mm-hmm … the type of people that would commit those crimes if they did them are probably different, right?

Zach Elwood: Right. Yeah, narrowing it down to a very specific type of situation is important, yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. And so what we found was kind of interesting, right?

So we found that a lot of the techniques that, and a lot of the, the potential cues for deception that had been developed and em- empirically supported didn’t hold water in our sample, and that could be for a number of reasons. Either maybe these types of offenders were better at lying than your average person, or maybe the, the stakes of an interrogation changes the dynamics a little bit.

So a lot of the, like, RE technique stuff, as you’d expect, did not hold much water. Um, I threw in a couple of the scan metrics just because I was curious, and those also kind of predictably failed

Zach Elwood: Yeah, the SCAN is the, the, the small, uh, verbal statement analysis type patterns. That’s what the S- the SCAN thing is.

Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. Yeah, that really has no empirical support anyways, to, to my knowledge. Um, it’s one of those practitioner-focused or developed ones that don’t really stand up when you, when you really start to dig into it very much. That being said, a couple of potential deceptive cues did come out in those studies as relevant.

Um, the biggest ones being sort of what would, what would be a set of behaviors that were indicative of someone experiencing cognitive load. So liars have to think harder than truth-tellers. You know, you saw, like, a lot more speech errors. Um, you saw sentences that became shorter and more simple, less, like, word variability.

You saw, um-

Zach Elwood: Delayed

Andrew Thompson: response … longer… Pardon me? Yeah,

Zach Elwood: pauses. Like pauses.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, exactly. Longer pauses. Yeah. Longer latency, so people waited longer to start to answer your question.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Andrew Thompson: And also, in the stories themselves, those stories became more simple. So liars and truth-tellers in this, in our sample, although they reported the same number of, like- Sensory details, like I saw this, I smelled this, I heard this.

The truth tellers were able to provide a lot more details that were sort of relational to one anoth- w- relational things to one another, right? So spatial details, “Oh, she was behind the rock when I did X.” Or- Mm-hmm … yeah, you know, the dog went this way, and she went this way, and I went this way. Those things seem to be harder for liars to sort of come up with on the fly and/or also probably didn’t prepare for as well, right?

You don’t think that those are sort of important details. So those things seem to be fairly diagnostic of deception, for a better word.

Zach Elwood: Would you say, um, for that second pattern you were talking about, is it fair to say the liars’ stories were, like, more vague and more generic basically? Is, is that a way to put it?

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, exactly. And so, and so you can, you can sort of view it two ways, right? On the one hand, you’re viewing just, like, their story in and out, like, the four corners of the story, right? So you’re just looking at how complex is their story, especially as you start relating to others. The other thing that we didn’t test but is, I know, like, one of the main empirically supported cues to deception, if you will, and that I personally use a lot, is you’re looking for the number of details that you could readily go out and verify, right?

Mm. So not necessarily that you are going out to verify them, but you know, if I start giving you a vague story about my alibi and I say, “Well, I was maybe here, maybe here, but I was asleep. I was at home alone asleep,” versus, “Oh yeah, I, you know, at 8:12 I got a phone call,” or, “I called this person at this time.”

You know, stuff that you could go out and verify.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Those tend to be very diagnostic of deception as well.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I think that’s a very interesting one. And I, I didn’t, I didn’t even know that was like a aspect of study, but I, I had read about it recently. But a few months ago, an example of this was related to the Epstein stuff.

Brett Ratner, the director, had been… You know, there was some picture of him hanging out with Epstein and, and, and it had a picture of Brett Ratner with this young woman, but her face was blurred out from this party.

Andrew Thompson: Right.

Zach Elwood: And Brett Ratner, like people were saying, you know, Brett, uh, is it Brett or Brent? I can’t remember.

Brett Ratner. Uh, they were saying, you know, “Explain this, uh, photo.” And he said in this interview recently, he said something like, “Oh, that was my, uh, fiance at the time. Like, it wasn’t a, a young girl that I met at one of Epstein’s girls, basically.” And like, it immediately to me, I’m like, yeah, he wouldn’t… To me, that’s like- very likely he’s telling the truth because if he was gonna lie, he would choose something very vague that couldn’t easily be confirmed, right?

He wouldn’t- Right … say, likely say, uh, his fiance because that would be pretty easy to, uh, verify, right? And I thought that was a good example of like people saying things that like theoretically you could know to y- that, that would be possible to verify and either weak- weaken or strengthen their story, right?

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. And l- and, you know, obviously, you know, you as an investigator, you would then after the interview go out and try to verify those details, right? You do the work.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. But in, in the moment, it, it is diagnostic. It also kind of goes back to some of the other findings that we had in the research, which was it seemed as if liars were much more focused on the investigator, so they tried to reference the investigator a lot.

They tried to get the investigators to agree with them a lot. Like sort of like-

Zach Elwood: Mm. “

Andrew Thompson: You know, you know what I mean?” Mm. They tried to bring them in. Yeah. Whereas truth tellers were very much just like kind of just gave the story, right? They let the story kind of stand on its own.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. That’s an interesting one, too.

‘Cause yeah, the, uh, it might be related, but I, I, I’ve seen people refer to it as like Almost like not trying to explain, but trying to, like, persuade and, like, get… You know, it’s, like, more of a focus on, like, getting them b- getting their buy-in than it is on just, like, explaining it.

Andrew Thompson: Totally. And it, and the- Yeah

it makes sense. And when you think about it in your own life, like, I mean, listen, I lie professionally. Uh, or for a lot of my professional life I’ve lied professionally, right? Maybe not so much for you. Uh, but that is a big part of it. It’s a confidence game, right? When I’m trying to convince someone I’m…

When I’m trying to convince that, you know, that sales rep that I work for a m- a midwifery practice that I’m standing up, a birth center I’m standing up, I’m doing a lot to get them to believe me, right? So there’s a part of it that’s sort of an active countermeasure or active sort of active management sort of thing- Mm-hmm, mm-hmm

that’s going on. And y- yeah, so I, I think it is a good sort of r- red flag if you’re being, talking to someone and someone is, like, trying very hard to get you to buy in with them.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. And, and, and a good liar, a good liar is gonna do that in such a way that it’s not obvious, but a bad liar, uh, or, you know, a unskilled liar might give that away that it’s, like, too actively trying to manage the, uh, the situation or the, or, or, or the other person’s perception or whatever it is.

Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Exa- yeah. So, like, if I’m, you know, if I’m trying to recruit you as a source, Zach, I’m, I’m trying to get you to buy into me, right? I’m developing rapport. I’m trying to get you to buy in that I’m a trustworthy guy, that you like me, before I go out and feed you whatever I’m trying to feed you. Mm-hmm.

Uh, now I, you know, likely I have the advantage of time where I can do that as opposed to, you know, reacting inside an interrogation room. But that certainly is, you know… A good liar would set up that before so they don’t have to when it comes to the actual story. So you’re right in that, in that regard.

Zach Elwood: I don’t know if there’s more to say on, on that area of, of research, or did you wanna talk about, I know you did some other work related to, um, personality types, or maybe that is the personal- maybe that is the personality type

Andrew Thompson: Yeah.

No, no. That, that’s totally sep- but it kinda- That’s separate … does bleed into it. Yeah, I’m happy to talk about that as well. Um, so the, the other sort of side of the research I got to do was with a, a really preeminent sort of profiler, Dr. Gabriel Salfati, again, with this sort of BSU research collaborative relationship.

But in there, what we were looking at is there was always this premise that you could interpret someone’s actions at, like, a crime scene, and from that sort of deduce what their personality characteristics might be. Right? This is the, the basics of profiling, right? It’s the basic premise of, of offender profiling.

Several researchers have suggested you could then take that and apply it one step further and predict what their behavior would be like inside the interrogation room. But people had theorized on that, but had never sort of tried to empirically test it. Again, it’s very hard to because you, it’s very hard to get access to those kind of materials, but we had them.

So we went out to try to see, hey, if I see all these crime scene behaviors, do these crime scene behaviors, can we classify them using this, you know, various taxonomies for profiling into certain types of offender? And then when we run their interrogation transcripts through some, um, linguistic analysis software, is what we would predict their language and their behavior, would that be consistent with the characteristics we would predict from their crime scenes?

So it’s the sort of like actions to characteristics to interrogation behavior linkage.

Zach Elwood: A- and one specific model you were using was this OVP. Yeah. I can’t remember what that… What, uh, maybe you could explain that for a little

Andrew Thompson: bit. Sure. So, uh, Dr. Cantor and Young’s developed this theory based on, on narrative theory, which is sort of a general personality theory that we’re all sort of the protagonist in our own story, right?

So as we go through life, we see ourselves as the main character, and we interact with the world and with others in ways that are consistent with whatever story we’re trying to tell ourselves. The Dr. Cantor and Young’s idea was, uh, for, uh, offenders, if you look at how they behave at the crime scene, that should play through that, right?

That different offenders, depending on what story they’re telling themselves, will behave with the victim differently.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Andrew Thompson: And so they had developed this theory that people s- uh, offenders largely saw victims as sort of objects where the victim itself, like the person itself wasn’t important. They were just an object to use or abuse as they, as they needed.

Zach Elwood: Like for some fetish or n- need or, or whatever it was

Andrew Thompson: they had. Yeah, like the, the victim it- it was just a means to an end, right? It was just a, it was just a, a tool to get to whatever they wanted. So that was the object of the OVP. Uh, V was the vehicle. So these people, the victims were seen as important, but they were more symbolic than they were important as an individual, right?

So I don’t necessarily care that I’m raping and murdering this sex worker, this specific sex worker. It’s just sex workers generally or women generally are offensive to me in some way and I’m going to take out my aggression on this person as a vehicle for all women.

Zach Elwood: Oh, maybe that’s more of like a fetish or obsession kind

Andrew Thompson: of like focus.

Exactly. So that, that would be probably more like a- Vehicle … a fetish type situation.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, that’s more the vehicle. Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: And then the person, the P is the person where you are seeing the victim as that specific person. So this would be like your prototypical domestic homicide, right? I’m angry at my ex-wife.

I kill my ex-wife because I’m angry at my ex-wife, right? What Cantor and Young suggested was that these OVP behaviors coincided with different types of stories, right? Hmm. So the people that treated their victims like objects saw themselves as these like adventurers or sort of people on, um, these like professionals, these sort of like more high and mighty types.

And what we found was largely consistent with that. Those types of offenders acted more sort of high ego in interrogation rooms. They talked in third person a lot more. They had a lot more focus on money and power in how they talked about themselves. Mm. Whereas, like, the people who treated their victims like vehicles were more like revenge types.

They were on, like, a revenge quest essentially. And so again, consistent with that, a lot of those types of offenders inside the interrogation room were more angry. They were more sort of, again, focused on revenge, had a lot more negative sort of emotions. And then the people that saw their victims as people seemed to be a lot more sort of tragic.

Uh, they, they had this sort of tragedy motif of like, “I’m the victim here. How could she do this to me? Like, what else could I have done? I was really powerless to stop, like, this, this scenario from playing itself out.” Mm. And so we found a lot of consistency there, which was really interesting and the first time that it had been done.

But the… I think personally the really cool part about that is that because this all kind of comes back to this narrative theory, which is just a general theory of personality, right? It wasn’t made for forensics specifically. My thought was always, well, why couldn’t you apply that to a much wider array of scenarios outside of a forensic setting?

If you take this idea that we’re all the, we all wanna be the protagonist of our own story, and we will show that off in how we dress and how we interact with people and how we interact with the world, well, why couldn’t I as a private investigator use that when I walk up and try to recruit a source if I see they are acting a certain way or presenting themselves a certain way?

Could I use that to inform my pitch or my first approach?

Zach Elwood: Like, if you knew that they had, like, a personalized license plate or these various traits about them, basically profiling, that would help your approach kind of in a-

Andrew Thompson: At least at a first instance, right? So going back to the security guard idea, right?

So, like, if you’re walking up, you have to talk your way through a security guard to get to, and access to a building. The person’s got, like, a Daffy Duck tie, and they’ve got a big smile, and they’re playing with little kids. Your approach to that person might be very different from the guy who stands up and is in, like, a law enforcement style duty belt and wears his watch with the face on the inside of the wrist and, you know, has a very stern expression, all that.

Like, you’re- Your initial approach might be very different for those two people. Now it’s only a first guess, right? You could certainly be wrong. Right. But if you’re just doing a cold pitch, you kinda… It’s something to go on.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. That, that kinda relates to, I mean, something I’ve focused on with this podcast.

Uh, it’s just, it seems like the, oftentimes with this behavioral stuff, it’s like what is the use of information that we know is far from 100%? We know, we know it’s not 100%. And like a lot of times, you know, for example, in games you can use that very easily because you’re often in these situations where it could go either way, which explains why, like you can, you know, base information on poker.

You know, you can use poker tells for these close situations or you might be very confident in, in, with some tells and not others, but it just helps explain why y- you know, you can u- you can use information that’s not 100%. So in this, in an investigative or interrogation work, it, it also seems the question is like what is the value of information that is not 100%?

And, and, and you’re, the thing you’re explaining where it’s like, sure, you know some of this, these guesses about how to approach somebody ba- based on their behavior, their, their traits. It, it might be far from 100%, but if you’re in a situation where you could take, you know, it could go multiple ways and there n- there’s not much downside for guessing a way, a, a, an approach that might be better, it seems like that’s ano- that is an example o- o- of, uh, you know, some, some information that might be useful even if we know, you know, it might be wrong sometimes.

In the same way i- in the interrogation room if you get a sense that somebody’s anxious o- at a certain line of questioning, that’s a, that’s a reason to, uh, follow up with a few more questions even though you know it might not be 100%, you know, it’s far from 100%, uh, indicative of guilt or hiding something.

So, um, but yeah, that’s what occurred to me is like when, when are the situations when we can like alter our approach based on a little bit of, uh, information, and that, that seems like a good one there. Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Right. And, and to your example, like or the opposite, right? If I, especially for someone like me who I’m not doing custodial interrogations, right?

The person can walk away from me at any time.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Andrew Thompson: So if I’m getting a sense that someone’s anxious about my questioning, I might like mentally note that for later to come back around to it, but maybe I back off that set of questioning-

Zach Elwood: Mm …

Andrew Thompson: because I wanna keep the, I wanna keep the dialogue going.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, yeah.

Yeah. You don’t wanna drive them away.

Zach Elwood: A quick note here: this might be a good place to insert a comment about just how wide and sprawling behavior is, as a concept. The sprawling nature of it can make these things hard to talk about. A few examples of what I mean: 

There’s a big difference between what’s called “body language” and the things people say. There’s also a big difference between what’s called “body language” and the actions people take; someone carrying a suspicious bag or loitering for a while in a specific area, those are much different things than what we call “body language.” There’s also a big difference between predicting physical movements in physical environments like sports, and reading body language. There’s also a big difference between “body language” and the clothing people wear, or the other choices they’ve made about how they or their physical possessions appear; our clothing and other choices about visual presentation are conscious, communicative choices; they have more in common with our verbal content than they do with small non-communicative movements of our face and body. I think there’s also a big difference between nonverbal actions that have more conscious communicative effort behind them than more non-communicative actions; for example, a smile will generally contain a lot more information than something like crossing one’s arms, simply because a smile is something someone knows they’re doing and thinks about the implications of; that is a channel where conscious communciation often happens, so it will on average contain a lot more information and be a greater source for possible deductions about intent and motives. 

But all these things, despite being so different, are often wrapped up in a general “behavior” category. And this can have consequences. Because including things that are of little value in the same category as things with high value has the effect of making the things of little value seem more important. 

Self-proclaimed “behavior experts” have an incentive to try to include as many things as possible in the category of nonverbal communication or “body language”. For example, I recently read this on Joe Navarro’s website: “Body language, or nonverbal communication, is more than just how your body moves. It’s about how you dress, how you talk, what you do and how you do it. It’s your character.” End quote. Lumping literally everything into a “body language” or “nonverbal behavior” bucket has the effect of making their area of focus—the body and face movement stuff—seem more impressive and more practically useful than it is. 

There’s also a big difference between reading people for signs of anxiety or agitation in order to try to set them at ease, as Andrew mentioned here, and treating signs of anxiety and agitation as possible clues to deception. Getting indicators of anxiety as a clue to “back off” and take a different approach is less akin to a “high stakes” use of behavior, as it’s usually thought of, and more akin to what almost all of us do in our personal and professional settings every day, which could be termed “low stakes” situations as opposed to “high stakes” situations; most of us are always monitoring others for signs of discomfort, dislike, and similar things, for social purposes, and I think that’s a pretty banal use of monitoring and reading people and behavior; the banality of that kind of use in “low stakes” environments helps account for the many Amazon reviews on “behavior expert” books saying things like “this was all very obvious; i already knew all this stuff.” 

Anyway, I thought this was a good moment to insert some thoughts on the various nuances in these behavior-related areas. 

Back to the talk…

Andrew Thompson: I am a firm believer that investigation generally, and certainly like source recruitment and interrogation, it is an art. But it’s an art that can be informed by science, right? Mm-hmm. It, and it can also be harmed if you’re using sort of pseudoscience, right? So you can certainly fall into pitfalls if you, you know, are focusing on NLP or some other sort of bullshit.

It can give you, take you down the wrong path, and then you have to sort of work yourself back up from that when you’ve, when you’ve made an error. But if you’re using good techniques, empirically validated techniques, it at least gives you, you know, maybe a 60% chance of success versus just a coin flip if you were just going in purely cold and had no idea.

Zach Elwood: When I talked to Craig Silverman, the, the investigative journalist, he, we were talking about the risks of, you know, confirmation bias and, and such creeping into your a- approach and your view of people. And it’s like, you know, the, it seems like a lot of the art would be avoiding, you know, your own biases and, and trying to keep a clear head, and then B, also knowing these softer skills of how to approach people and, you know, try to, try to manage the situation to get, you know, achieve your ob- objective.

It seems like there’s so much skill in that, in that area.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, and it’s good- Yeah … it’s good confirmation, right? It can be good confirmation, right? So like this, this sort of characteristics to linguistic style research. So, you know, the, that really stern security guard that I was talking about, I might approach him under a cer- you know, trying to bring him into the super secret spy stuff I’m doing.

But if as I’m talking to him, his language is not matching that presentation, he’s actually, you know, more of a just sort of like trying to get through the day and do his job, well, I have to adapt, right? If I just blow past all these signals that he’s showing me, then I’m, I’m really screwed. But if I can use the science to sort of be like, “Oh, wait, don’t get stuck in confirmation bias.

This guy is giving off something totally different than I first thought. Let’s, let’s try to, you know, steer the ship in a different direction and see if I can be more effective that way.”

Zach Elwood: So y- y- you had briefly mentioned it, but I was curious, in the realm of, um, bad and exaggerated ideas about what you can do with behavior, do you see people, colleagues in the investigative or law enforcement space still using a lot of those ideas?

And what comes to mind for what’s most common or, or, um, aggravating in that area?

Andrew Thompson: It, it was a lot aggravating. So, you know, I think despite what people might try to say and different agencies might try to say, Reid is still prevalent in almost every, you know, both on the private sector and in government agencies.

It’s still the way that people do things. Um, so that very aggressive, uh, sort of coercive style of interviewing and interrogation- Mm … and also a focus on anxiety and sort of these non-verbal behaviors that don’t really make any sense if you try to think about it empirically or think about it from any sort of- Historically

scientific background.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: You know, so I see people make mistakes all the time, and then, uh, the problem is, and then that gets into your confirmation bias, right? That’s how false confessions happen. That’s just how generally sometimes cops or PIs come to bad conclusions ’cause it’s like, “Oh, well, the person’s anxious, so clearly they’re lying to me, so I must be right, so I must have to push harder,” which makes the person more anxious.

Zach Elwood: Right. And they focus on them at the exclusion of other leads and

Andrew Thompson: such. Or focus on this one theory at, at only, at the exclusion of all others, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Andrew Thompson: More importantly, I think, uh, at, at least from what I, what I was doing in the defense world doing criminal defense work, is I as a defense investigator, I will use that against you 100- like, I will turn that back on you 100% of the time because what, what I’ve found is that aggressive, um, sort of threatening techniques that are used during interrogation, they get used not just in the interrogation room.

I’ve seen them used against witnesses. I’ve seen them used against victims. Um, and so if I come in with my softer skills- Hmm … and, you know, can be the first person in this whole process that’s showing you empathy- You might be more willing to talk to me, and I actually might be able to get you to recant what you said to the cops or decide that you don’t wanna talk to the cop.

I’m your friend now, you don’t wanna talk to the cops. I have your best interest in mind, not the cops.

Zach Elwood: It’s like bad cop, good investigator.

Andrew Thompson: K- kind of, right? And that’s been, you know, I know that y- like I said, I know you talked to, to Christian Corey and Maria Hartwig, who are the coolies of, of Alethea. Um, I’m, I’m also part of the advisory council of Alethea, and that’s- Hmm

my kind of soapbox to jump on, on these meetings that we have, is like, you know, yes, it’s important to sort of try to explain to law enforcement why empirically supported, non-coercive information gathering approaches like the Sue technique, like cognitive interviewing are important ’cause it gets better information.

But I’m also saying, but we also need to show them the stick, which is if you do the other thing, not only are you at risk of like getting that interrogation result sort of undermined by experts who say it was coercive, if you do that to other people, I am gonna come in and beat you over the head with it and I’m going to exploit that for my own gain.

Yeah. And then in terms of deception, like s- there’s still people that still believe in the NLP stuff. There’s, you know, the Joe Navarro type, the very like idiosyncratic, you know, crossing your arms, psychological distancing, that stuff.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Paying way too much attention to these things that really don’t matter, that many innocent people do because they’re anxious or just are random variations in behavior.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, exactly. And j- and again, and I think you hit it on the head, right? They’re just, they’re just random variations, right? So you can, again, you can get suckered into a line of questioning or into a confirmation bias of like a theory of the case. Um, and that happens on the private sector side, that happens in law enforcement and in the intelligence community all the time.

And it’s, it’s dangerous, right? It’s, it’s not good for outcomes. Those outcomes have real results on people’s lives. It’s easily preventable if you just like, again, even if you just think about it for a few minutes and think that like, well, why would crossing your arms really matter? Like what psychological, what brain process links to crossing your arms?

Yeah. That is indicative of lying and not 18 other things.

Zach Elwood: You would think most people would, would realize, like logically it doesn’t hold much water. But yeah, it is kind of amazing how many people still put so much stock in those little things, but,

Andrew Thompson: um- But it’s, it’s easier, right? I think at the end of the day, I think a r- a lot of why this continues to exist and even continues to exist in people that theoretically should know better, professionals who do this all the time-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm

Andrew Thompson: is it’s a lot easier to aggressively question someone than it is to think about their behaviors and how they present themselves and come up with a profile based on that and make your pitch attuned to that profile, and then adjust it as you start interacting with it. Like that is… Well, I’m, I can tell you from personal experience, that is exhausting work.

It is exha- it is mentally exhausting to do that, but it gets you better results and it, and especially in the private sector, you know, PI work is the ultimate meritocracy, right? There’s, there’s a lot of PIs out there, if you don’t get results, you will not be hired again. Hmm. Or if you work, uh, if you’re a W-2 employee, like you, you are employed directly by, uh, a law firm, like you work in-house at a law firm or, uh, wherever, an ana- like a hedge fund or something, they’re not gonna tolerate you being wrong because being wrong equals money, and if you’re costing the company money, they’ll just churn to the next guy or girl.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Yeah, much more pressure to, uh, get results and in the m- uh, uh, in the short term. Right. Yeah. On the, uh, topic of, uh, people being, uh, interrogators being more aggressive than they should be, it’s hard for me to get a sense of it because I just, you know, I’m pretty, obviously pretty distant from it. But you know, I, I, I watch a good amount of interrogation footage on YouTube and such, and it does seem…

I mean, I see a good amount of police, uh, taking more You know, very, uh, rapport building and, and gentle approaches. Would, would you agree that it has improved in, in, in, in that, in that area a lot, even if you also think you see too many people taking hard and, uh, aggressive approaches more, more than they should?

But I, I’m curious, do you, have you seen a big… Do you think there’s a, been a big up- upswing in, like, the quality of taking more rapport building approaches?

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, I think so. I can only speak to, like, the, the areas I’ve operated in, which in, you know, in Canada and then here in New York, more progressive, larger agencies that probably are faster, right, than maybe some places in smaller communities.

Right. Um, so I’m sure there’s some variability there. Um, but absolutely, you know, you, you can see that in the training regimes, you can see that in, in just watching, like you said, watching interrogation tapes. There are certainly… And, you know, and also with groups like Aletheia who are out there trying to sort of preach and, and train people in better ways of doing things, and bringing researchers and practitioners together so it’s a more, uh, united front to come out and sort of do this.

Um- Mm-hmm … but yeah, I, I certainly think it’s better than it has been, and continues to get better. Um, again, I think that it’s honestly, it’s just, it’s the timing, right? I think that the more pressure police officers face, the more they’re gonna go back to the well of these more aggressive techniques and more fear-based techniques, whether that’s deception detection or, like, just questioning in general.

Because again, they’re, they’re faster and, and they are effective. Um, sometimes someone would argue they’re too effective, right, is the problem.

Zach Elwood: Right. Hence, yeah, the, the, the false confession concern. Yeah. Uh, right. Uh, I was curious, um, it do- you know, in this area, we, we briefly touched on it, but it does, it does seem like There can be some polarized views about, you know, the use of behavior in general, in the sense that it’s understandable why people are concerned about using behavior because we know, A, there’s a bunch of bad ideas that are out there, and then B, they’re concerned about people, uh, being way too certain about these things.

For example, the scan thing you, you mentioned, uh- Right … the guy who did that, does that, uh, scan stuff acts way too confident about like this means that, this means that. Uh, I also think it’s possible to be like too biased against the use of any behavioral things because I do think, you know, we– there are things that we pick up and I think to me it’s like as long as you’re ensuring that you’re not being overly confident and you’re thinking carefully about like, “If I’m wrong about this, what’s the downside of me being wrong?

And what are these situations where I can, you know, where I would actually get some use from like making a read about something,” right? I, I, I think it’s possible to be both way… Value that kind of stuff way too highly and be too certain about it and also like completely devalue it and say like, “Don’t use it at all.”

Would you agree with that? And, you know, uh, uh, ’cause I do think, you know, there’s, there’s all sort- like you, you said studying the verbal kind of statement, uh, uh, uh, patterns in, uh, people. I mean, there’s all sorts of ways that we get information about people, whether it’s verbal or like, you know, someone’s overall demeanor in a, uh, you know, how they’re, how they’re acting.

Uh, and it might be that we, m- a lot of the times those things aren’t actionable, but occasionally they can be a bit actionable. Uh, like a few examples we, we talked about, but I’m curious if you’d agree that, you know, there can be kind of this polarization of like thinking about behavior.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, absolutely, right.

I think kinda it goes back to that art versus science th- th- feeling that I touched on, right? Um, you know, I think you have practitioners, a lot of practitioners at least traditionally would say like, “No, listen, it’s an art form. You have to be able to… You know, you can tell idiosyncratic, you know, movements might be, might be relevant.”

And then you have researchers say, “No, it’s a science and it has to be empirically valid.” I, I think it is in the middle, like you said, right? I don’t think you should be– I think you should be trying to focus on behaviors that have some sort of empirical basis, right? If you’re focused on something that’s just totally out of no- like out of left field Right?

The, the, like, you know, the eye movement stuff. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Right? Well, there’s, there’s absolutely zero base in that. So, like, relying on that in- for anything is just, it’s gonna get you bad outcomes. Right. Regardless of how focused you are- Yeah … on it or not.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Um.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: But yeah, some of these other behaviors, the, like, the, the cognitive load type behaviors, and there’s certainly non-verbal behaviors that go along with that.

Um, some of the, the paralinguistic stuff, even some idiosyncratic stuff, right? You know, I think it’s all about context. If I’m first meeting someone, is, you know, whether they cross their arms or push themselves away or how they, like, align their, their body to mine, is any of that gonna be relevant if I’ve known you for two hours?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Andrew Thompson: Absolutely not.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Andrew Thompson: You know, I, I don’t know about you, I’ve been married a long time. Uh, I pretty reliably can tell when my wife is lying, right? And a lot of those behaviors probably are idiosyncratic to her. It’s all gonna be relevant to context. Um, but even anxiety, right? I think that everyone, you know, I think especially on the scientific side of things, people say, “Well, anxiety has nothing to do with deception.”

Well, again, it’s context dependent. Right. Right? If the FBI knocks on my door after we’re done this interview and says, “Give me your phone, I wanna look through it,” I’m probably gonna be pretty anxious. Right? I think that’s a reasonable response. Mm-hmm. If, you know, my wife later tonight says, “Oh, hey, I left my phone upstairs.

Can I, like, I have to call, you know, my patient. Can I use your phone?” And I am suddenly, like, shaking and fumbling for my phone.

Zach Elwood: Giving excuses, yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Right. Yeah. But again, the, the danger of that is, like, well, but why? Right. Right? You know, maybe I, you know, my wife’s birthday’s coming up soon. Maybe it’s the, that, like I know that I have an open tab that has like her gift on it or whatever, right?

Um, so it’s, it’s about balancing it, but I don’t think it’s useless. I don’t think– I think- Right … all data is useful.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, it’s data.

Andrew Thompson: It’s just you have to weight it appropriately.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. That’s what, you know, I, when I think about these things, it’s like when we talk about quick reads of people and whatever it is, they’re deductions, and like some deductions can be very bad.

Like if you’re making a dedu- deduction based on some really small and highly variable piece of data, that- that’s gonna be a bad deduction. But like the more logic you can put behind the deduction, the stronger it’s gonna be. But as, and, and you also have to, you know, recognize that your own fallibility and, and recognize that this, this might be a deduction that I, I have like, you know, 55 to 60% confidence in versus like, you know, 90.

Like any deductive re- logical reasoning, it’s like you’re, you’re chaining together ideas and tho- those ideas can either be very bad or very good or have limited, you know, reliability and all that.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. And I think, and, and it’s important to sort of keep taking data points. And like I, like I was sort of saying, right, on the approach, right?

I mean, listen, it happens all the time to me, right? I make an approach to recruit a source, and this is the theme I’m developing ’cause I think based on their background or their, their language that this is gonna be the, this is the narrative that is gonna most resonate with their story, and that’s how I’m gonna get them on my side.

And then it turns out like, oh no, that is not working correctly. Or like, oh, their, their body language is changing and their language is not matching what I would expect it to. Mm. That’s all good data for me to like, oh, I need to change my approach now because I’m just digging myself deeper in a hole.

And listen, there’s, there’s, I have lots of examples of where I’ve failed at that, right? You get locked into this story and it ends up screwing you, so you, you have to be open-minded.

Zach Elwood: It’s really good… It was a really good point you brought up too about how reading anxiety or irritation in someone i- in your, you know, in, in the private investigative line of work, it’s almost like you might approach it theoretically the opposite of a cop would, where you might wanna back off and be like, “I don’t wanna blow,” you know, “I, I don’t wanna blow this or get them to stop talking to me, so I might back off and return to it later.”

You know, you have to, uh… That, that’s a, that’s a really interesting point about using those indicators of like, “I’m bothering… I’m getting some signs that I’m bothering this person in some way or another.” Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, or you need to approach a different way, right? There’s a really, um, there’s a set of techniques that are been researched recently called the Scharff techniques, and they’re actually very old techniques.

It’s, they’re based on a… I don’t know if you’ve, you’ve ever heard of Han Scharff.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: And that’s a big part of the Scharff technique, right? Is like you don’t, you purposely don’t react to very important information that the person’s revealed. You don’t let them know that it’s important to you.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Right? Because the goal, the goal is to make them think that you know everything kind of a thing, right?

Andrew Thompson: That you either you already know the information, and so why would they not tell you? And also, like, it encourages them to continue to talk to you more, right? So, like, for example, I rarely, to the best of my ability, I rarely try to take notes when I’m- Hmm

interviewing someone face to face.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Because that just subconsciously the person will tell if I’m really interested.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, and it kind of ups the stakes, too, where it’s like… Yeah, it’s the sa- it’s the same way, like re- reason that many people don’t wear sunglasses in poker ’cause it makes other people, puts them on guard more.

Zach Elwood: A quick note: I realized a much better analogy in poker is much more direct; many serious players avoid taking obvious notes when playing, as they don’t want other players to know how serious they are. One nice thing about mobile phones, in the poker realm, is that you can take notes without anyone ever knowing what you’re doing. When I would take notes on my phone when playing poker, I would go out of my way to make sure people didn’t know I was doing that. Back to the talk. 

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, and, and, you know, and that’s important for both, like get- eliciting information in terms of, like people engaging in countermeasures. Even, even for an extent when, you know, you’re interrogating someone and you catch them in a lie. Well, why would I let that person know that I have them, right? It’s, I mean, that kind of goes part of SHARF, it’s also part of the, the strategic use of evidence technique that Dr.

Hartwig developed. Hmm. Lead them down the path, let them sort of lock themselves in, don’t reveal anything, and then start working it back. Right. Um- Right … I think that those are probably the, the more effective ways to go, right? Um, and then terms, in terms of elicitation, I think people, like to your point, people can start feeling really defensive or really sort of scared once they, if they start realizing like, “Oh, oh shit, I’ve, like I have the, the keys to unlock this multi-billion dollar securities fraud.

I don’t really wanna be involved in this. I don’t really wanna be, you know, dragged into this like crazy, you know, titan versus titan lawsuit or, or investigation.” So all of a sudden I’m very keen on something you said, maybe you start backing away from it, whereas if I just ignore it- Right … or ignore that you’re anxious about it and attack it a different way later on, you think you’ve sort of, you either, you don’t realize that it’s that important, right?

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And certainly some of the best witnesses I’ve ever had and best sources I’ve ever developed never really knew that, that what they gave me was of any value whatsoever until it came time to sort of, you know, confront them about it at trial or, or all of a sudden that information appears in a, in some sort of pleading, right?

Zach Elwood: Right. No, yeah. No, that’s a very, yeah, very good points about that. I, I was kind of curious how AI had maybe changed your work in the last few years.

Andrew Thompson: So AI is huge right now. Uh, I’ve, I’ve seen pitches, like I’ve personally been pitched on stuff. I’ve also sort of heard through, you know, just through the industry about a lot of pitches, and it’s, it’s being pitched for everything, right?

Um, there’s pitches on, “Our AI can listen to earnings call transcripts and figure out when CEOs are lying about whatever res- financial results.”

Zach Elwood: Like using, uh, is that like pitch anal- uh, pitch analysis or is that like statement analysis type stuff?

Andrew Thompson: It’s usually state- it’s like content analysis.

Zach Elwood: A quick note: for a discussion of the advances in AI and machine learning in the deception detection realm, and why machines are better at doing that than humans, check out a recent talk I had with Bennett Kleinberg. I think it’s clear that there can be major recognizable patterns in what people say, and what they don’t say. One of the biggest most practically useful things in the area of listening to what people say is just noticing when people actually answer questions, and if they’re being specific or if they’re being vague or misdirecting to something else. 

Andrew Thompson: You know, so I’ve seen those pitches. I’ve seen pitches, uh, I think what’s I think is actively being used in places for insider threat analysis. So Fortune 500 company has this system that sort of scrapes everyone’s emails and sees how their language has changed, and based on different characteristics and changes in that language, it detects if someone might be an insider threat, someone might be willing to sort of give up information or leave the company and potentially sell secrets.

Zach Elwood: It’s like a Minority Report for, uh, disgruntled employees, huh?

Andrew Thompson: K- kind of, right? Um, you know, in my opinion from the pitches I’ve seen and just from my knowledge of, like, what AI is capable of, I don’t think it’s there.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Andrew Thompson: I also don’t necessarily think it’s ever going to get there. The thing, the problem with especially lie detection in particular, ’cause that’s more my area special- uh, specialty, but is that the behaviors, like, those passive cues are so not detectable in many ways.

They’re not, they’re not strongly correlated.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Andrew Thompson: That I don’t know if AI will ever be able to, like, with any sort of sense of, of actionable confidence make those determinations.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. It’s the actionable thing ’cause it’s like h- h- how, how reliable does something have to be before it is actionable? In a lot of cases it has to be quite high to be actionable.

So yeah, if it never crosses that threshold, it’s not gonna be very useful. Totally. Yeah.

Andrew Thompson: That being said, what I personally have used AI for and what I think it could become very effective at as the AI develops is sort of taking all this volumous amounts of information that you develop during the course of an investigation and comparing that to, say, individual statements, right?

Hmm. So I interrogate, I question the defendant of a case about something. AI compare that to all the other witness statements, all the physical evidence, all of this. Tell me what inconsistencies you found, tell me what’s consistent. Point, you know, develop, show that. Yeah. That seems more what it’s capable of.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. No, that’s, that, that’s what… I mean, that’s hugely valuable i- in the work, i- in my career in, uh, technical documentation for, for software. So for example, you know, one application is, like, we’re putting out a new document and we wanna make sure, you know, parse the whole documentation site and make sure that there’s nothing contradictory in this, you know, with the whole doc site.

So it’s, like, really great for, uh, analyzing and parsing large volumous, uh, content or, or data or whatever it is and saying, “Find discrepancies or find contradictions or find conflicts.” Uh, yeah. It, it, it’s great for that, and I can imagine, like, in a big legal case where you have a whole bunch of information and that, like, as a s- as opposed to, you know, getting paralegals or, or, you know, uh, whoever to, or, or the investigator to go through all that to compare things.

It’s like, yeah, AI is, is great for that kind of thing. That makes sense.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah. Yeah. And, and that is, that is exactly a use case that is actively being used right now in cases I work, right? Which is it will alert me if from, you know- a public co- public companies have to file these massive, you know, hundreds of pages financial reports, and a lot of the language, like the, especially like the risk language, right?

They give warnings about what could happen in the future, is boilerplate. It, it doesn’t change quarter to quarter, and one of the things that AI will do for me is instantly tell me, “Oh, hey, company ABC changed its, its language, its risk warning about its, you know, potential exposure to criminal investigation.”

Well, why did it do that, right? If you f- if a lawyer has suddenly decided to change that language, it’s for a reason. Mm-hmm. And if that, if that change is negative, if it implies more risk, then, you know, maybe there’s some, there’s some smoke there, right? That’s something to pursue.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Andrew Thompson: And you’re right, that would take, you know, hours of incredibly tedious work to manually do, and AI can just do that instantaneously.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Andrew Thompson: And like I said, and same with, you know, take the statement and show me how it compares to all the other witness statements about this same murder, right? About this same-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Andrew Thompson: fight that happened.

Zach Elwood: Right. No, that’s-

Andrew Thompson: Point out the inco- inconsistencies.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. No, that’s, that, that is, that is the coolest thing about AI, yeah, what it, what it, what it can do with that, that kind of thing.

Um, this has been great, Andrew. Do you wanna mention anything else before we, we end it?

Andrew Thompson: No, no. Thank you for having me. This, this is always, it’s always fun to talk about. I could talk about this stuff forever. Um, you know, the, yeah, the, the only thing I would maybe, I would maybe want to just point out and point out to any, like, current private investigators or, or people that are thinking about getting into the field is I would just really, really stress this idea that anytime you recruit a source, whether it’s just through persuasion, right?

Telling someone who you, who you are and why you want the information and convincing them to give it to you, or through manipulation, approaching them under some sort of cover identity and manipulating them into giving you stuff. Anytime you approach a, a source it’s a risk to them, right? It’s, you know, in the m- in the most dire cases it can be a risk to their safety.

In the case of, like, the security guard scenario I was, I was talking about earlier, it could be a risk to their job. Mm. Right? Mm-hmm. Um, but it is a real risk, and I think that PIs and cops tend to downplay that just ’cause of how, how common it is to use those techniques. Mm. Um, but you really have to think about what you’re doing and make sure that the potential payoff is gonna be worth it.

Mm. Because that is, you know, when you’re applying all these techniques, you can be very, become very effective and get people to do things they wouldn’t other normal i- normally tell you.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Andrew Thompson: And there is ethical concerns with that, that you have to think about.

Zach Elwood: Ah, yeah. Yeah. Thinking about the other person, yeah, being, yeah, being ethical in your, in, in, in the pursuit of your objectives, yeah, yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Yeah, and at the end of the day, like, you… It’s your job. You have to, right? Like, at the end of the day if I have to burn a source because they have information about a multi-billion dollar securities fraud, well, I’m gonna burn the source because that’s my job. That’s what I’m getting paid to do.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Andrew Thompson: But you at least have to own it and recognize that that is-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Andrew Thompson: that’s where you’re living, right? Yeah, recognize. You’re living in that gray area.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you have to at least see the impacts and weigh the- Right … weigh the outcomes and such, yeah.

Andrew Thompson: Exactly.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. No, this has been great. Thanks a lot, Andrew.

Andrew Thompson: No, thanks so much, Zach. I appreciate it.

Categories
podcast

A talk with a Joe Navarro-certified body language expert

On this podcast, I sometimes explore nuance in the “behavior expert” domain. I’ve recently gotten curious about what value people say that they’ve received from “behavior expert” trainings and certifications. This is a talk with Gallia Winkler, a psychological coach and a behavioral student of Joe Navarro’s; she’s been certified in his Body Language Expert Program. I ask her about what drives her interest in nonverbal behavior, what value she believes she’s gotten from Navarro’s teachings, and how those teachings have helped her in her personal and professional life.

Episode links:


TRANSCRIPT

(transcript is automatically generated and contains errors)

Zach Elwood: If you don’t mind me asking, how much did that course cost, the Navarro course? 

Gallia: I guess it was about 4,000 euros.

Zach Elwood: Was that like a once a week kind of thing or, or was it a- 

Gallia: No. I, I spent a lot of time there. Um- 

Zach Elwood: Oh … 

Gallia: sometimes six hours a day. 

Zach Elwood: Oh, wow.

Gallia: Yeah. Uh, as I didn’t want just to read it and finish it, so I want to absorb it, you know? Hmm. It was, uh, valuable, it was also expensive, and it was worth every single cent.

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from a talk I had with Gallia Winkler. I got interested in talking to Gallia when I read a post of hers on LinkedIn praising Joe Navarro and expressing excitement about his most recent book Mastering Connections, which is approximately his 16th book, something in that range. I’ll read Gallia’s linkedin post:

Finally holding it in my hands.

The new book by my favourite person, Joe Navarro.

Not only because of what he knows, but because of the impact he has had on my life.

He taught me not just to see, but to observe.

He opened new horizons for me and showed me a completely different way of looking at people, communication, and the world around us. Through that, I discovered interests, strengths, and possibilities I might never have explored otherwise.

What I appreciate most is that he always encouraged growth. He never told me who to become. Instead, he encouraged me to keep learning, keep developing, and keep moving forward, with him or without him.

That is one of the reasons why I admire him so much. He truly lives what he teaches.

Muchas gracias, Joe, for continuing to share your knowledge and for inspiring so many of us.

I can’t wait to start reading.

So that was a post from Gallia praising the “behavior expert” Joe Navarro. Strong praise, obviously. This got me curious to talk to her, to find out what she has found so valuable from his books and training. As you heard a bit about, Gallia has spent many hours training under Joe Navarro and has received a certificate from him, so we’ll talk about what she’s learned and what practical impact such things have had in her life.  

If you’ve listened to this podcast before, you might know that I am curious about the value people say they get from “behavior experts” like Joe Navarro and others in the “behavior expert” space. For example, why do some people say they find immense value in such books and trainings, while other people say that they find the information to be banal and basically “common sense”? I’m currently working on a book that will be titled Read People For Real, and I reached out to Gallia as part of research for that book, because I wanted to better understand what “behavior expert” fans are perceiving as valuable. I’ll avoid giving my own opinions in this episode and just let you listen to my guest say what she’s found valuable. 

A note about editing: I’ve done basically no editing on this talk, just removing some of the longer pauses and some of the longer word repetitions, and also a spot where Gallia was having trouble remembering the word for something. So, basically, this is an unedited talk in terms of the content.

Also, just a note that there was an audio issue in there for Gallia’s audio, there were some cracklings and poppings in there, so apologies for that. 

If you want to learn more about this podcast, go to behavior-podcast.com and check out episode compilations, transcripts, resources mentioned in the episodes, and more. 

Okay, here’s the talk with Gallia. 

Zach Elwood: Hi, Galia. Thanks for joining me.

Gallia: Thank you. Thank you for inviting me.

Zach Elwood: So maybe we could start with, uh, talking about, uh, you sharing some of the work that you’ve done that’s related to behavior and psychology, the work you do.

Gallia: Yes. Uh, well, everything started at the airport, Frankfurt Airport, uh, because, um, yes, I…

There are a lot of people, they come together from different nationalities, and the airport is a place where all the emotions are loaded, so from happiness to sadness to anger, um, being impatient, and so on. And I started asking myself a question. So because some interactions, they are, they were just com- uh, comfortable, were very nice, and some were very uncomfortable.

I said, “Uh, what is this about? So why do some people have this influence to, to, to make me, uh, feel this, this, this discomfort?” Um, yes, I had no answers for this, and this, this is why I started, yeah, reading and educating myself. And, um, yeah, this led me to the psychological, uh, field, where I, um, finished my, um…

During COVID, I had some time, and I f- uh, finished my training in, as a psychological counselor And, uh, yes, I found some answers, but I was not satisfied by them, so ’cause it was more about this. So it’s more the psychological part, and the other was the behavioral part. And, um, yeah, so this is, um, where, uh, here in Germany especially, they still work with, uh, NLP.

Hmm. And it’s was not very convincing for me, so ’cause, um, it’s, um, I don’t know, it’s, uh, it’s not backed in science, and it’s just based on observations, uh, which, uh, were, for example, if you have left-handed people, it doesn’t fit what they see. If you see upwards, uh, you look upward, and, uh, you’re thinking about the future, it’s…

And it’s not true. It’s not true. It’s more complicated, more complex than this. So that’s why I kept on looking for answers, and then I met Joe Navarro.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: And I contacted him, and he told me he has a, um, course, uh, where he is explaining everything backed in science and so on. And he asked me if we can have a call.

I said, “Oh, well, yeah, of course.” Uh, I was very surprised, uh, that he took the time for this because it’s Joe Navarro, no? And I said, “Okay, yeah, um, I, I’m not sure if I… It’s, it’s COVID. I don’t have my, um, enough money for now.” And he said, “Yeah, well, I will be in, in, uh, Amsterdam if you wanna join us. Uh, then maybe we can meet.”

And there is what, uh, where everything happened. He convinced me with all his, uh, congruence. His, he, he practices what he preaches. He’s a person who gives you a real psychological comfort. It’s, it was amazing. It was… I, I never met a person like him before.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: And everything, all the little, how can I say?

Everything matter- matters to him. The way he dresses, the way he moves, the way he talks, the speed, the pace, everything is, is congruent. It’s, it was, it was, uh, like yeah, I don’t know, like, uh, I never met someone like him before. Hmm. And this caused a big impression on me, so, uh, I did everything possible for, uh, joining his course, uh, for the nonverbal expert.

And yeah, then I told Joe, um, “Well, I, I, I love this, but here in Germany, uh, German people are very special and, um, they don’t, uh, acknowledge, um, a certificate. They don’t acknowledge n- nothing which is not, um, um, academic.”

Zach Elwood: And- Oh, so you, you had gotten a certificate from attending that, uh, course with Joe?

Gallia: Yeah. It was nine months. It was like a, a boot camp.

Zach Elwood: Oh, it lasted nine, nine months?

Gallia: Yeah. It was not just like a course you do in a few- It was o- it was

Zach Elwood: online, or…?

Gallia: Yes, yes.

Zach Elwood: Oh, okay. Yeah.

Gallia: And, um, it was really a boot camp for me, so ’cause he explained everything from the beginning and the science behind the, our behaviors.

For example, why we do a shoulder shrug, uh, how is it connected to our brain. Uh, for example, when we were, uh, living with predators, um, with felines, um, when they, um, bite you, they bite you here in the neck. That’s why we used to protect the neck. So this is really wired in our, um, brain, uh, from Hundreds of year ago.

Yeah. And, uh, he explained so many things. It was like a puzzle I always had, and he gave me the pieces for forming, uh, the big picture. Mm. And he didn’t just give me the pieces, he also taught me how to look for the pieces and where to look for.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Gallia: And this was very, very interesting for me. It’s like he opened new, uh, dimension-

Zach Elwood: Mm

Gallia: to see the world. I see the world now in a d- through a different lens.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Gallia: And it’s … It was like, wow, I never thought I had the skills for this, and it’s actually so easy and still so complicated b- because you need awareness for this. Mm. You need to be aware. He always, um, says, “Stop seeing, start observing.”

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Gallia: Uh, “Stop hearing, start listening.” So, and there is a huge difference, um, and this is awareness itself. So living in the present moment, what do you see, and be curious why. And also the things you omit, they also matters. Context matters.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Gallia: There are no absolutes. You always see … have to see the context, and also be aware about your own non-verbals because they, uh, like Cliff Lensley say, now where I’m studying, uh, my MSC, he says, uh, your own, your own behavior can contaminate the interaction, so if you’re not aware of it.

So, and this is part, also part of the context, and this gave me a lot of, uh, answers I were looking for, uh, which I never thought- reaching them or, or, or, or being able to catch them in, in such a clear way. And yeah, this is what I became so passionate about, non-verbals. And Joe was a big influence, and not j- just because of what he taught, uh, but because he is the person who displays everything, the congruence.

And not just only when he is, uh, with people surrounding him, also when nobody is looking at him. He stays stable and he displays the same things. He’s approachable. He is, um… He also showed me that professionalism and humanity are not o- opposites. So you can be professional and you can be approachable.

You can be a, still a human being. You can still, uh, be able to feel other people comfortable. And he als- always says it’s non-verbals and all the behavioral analysis, it’s all about comfort and discomfort It’s all about. Mm. It sounds easy, but it’s, it’s not. Mm-hmm. There is a lot, uh, around the topic. Mm. But it’s- Mm-hmm

yeah, it’s about displaying this, uh, comfort, and then the reciprocity principle comes. So if you feel s- let someone feel comfortable, they will be grateful. They w- and this gratefulness will feel you comfortable as well.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: So, uh, and this is what I really appreciate from Joe, and he always encouraged me to, uh, keep on learning.

He says, “This is a field you never stop learning. There is a lot to learn about.” And he also encouraged me to, um, to go for the MSC.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: So even without him, so it’s not something he can provide me because, uh, he only has well, only, uh, his academy and, uh, and here in Germany, only the, um, this title of an MSC, it’s that one that counts.

Mm. And, uh, only the academic, uh, field is, uh, worth, uh, to be, uh, acknowledged. They are very strict here in Germany. Hmm. And that’s why I said, “Yeah, Galia, do that now or never.”

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: And yes- Mm-hmm … here I am.

Zach Elwood: Um, I was curious i- if you’d care to share, how long did you… At the airport, were you doing something that involved, like, reading people in some way?

Was it security-related, or was it not related to that at all?

Gallia: No, but reading people is, uh, essential. It’s, uh… Because, um, you have… Not everybody speaks Engl- English. I speak four languages, but it’s not enough, you know? So some people are, uh, you also have to be aware about the idiosyncratic behaviors. For example, don’t to misinterpret them.

Uh, Asian people behave different than, uh, Western people, or, uh… And he also taught me not to take it personally, but to be curious what is behind the reason why they are, um- reacting like they do. Hmm. ‘Cause also she taught me

the, the difference be- be, uh, between reaction and a response.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: Reaction is something what triggers you, and, um, it’s suddenly. And a response is thoughtful. So they can be reactive, but I can be responsive. Hmm. So by not taking it personally. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: If you don’t mind, if you don’t mind me asking, um, what was it you were doing at the airport, and are you still doing that now, or have you moved away from the-

Gallia: No, no

the airport? I moved away. I moved away.

Zach Elwood: Oh.

Gallia: Uh, yeah. Um, I was in the duty frees, in the duty-free shops.

Zach Elwood: Oh, okay.

Gallia: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Gotcha.

Gallia: Yeah. That’s where everybody comes in when

Zach Elwood: And that, and that was what made you curious about the human behavior, seeing how, how everybody-

Gallia: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: beha- yeah. Um, and I’m curious now, you know, what, uh, when it comes to You know, whether it, whether it’s the, um, counseling or personal life or professional life, what are, uh, what are some examples that come to mind for, um, you know, how the, the learning about behavior has, has helped you in your i- in, in personal, uh, or professional experiences?

Do you have any stories?

Gallia: Yes. It helps me every day, actually. For example, now I’m working, um, with a doctor who is, uh, doing some, uh, treatments for, uh, dementia patients and their families. And being aware of non-verbals makes the rapport so much easier. Also for, uh, people with dementia c- ’cause they are sometimes they know you, sometimes they forget you, sometimes they are– they change their moods very quickly.

And you have to be able to adapt to them, also to their relatives, and, uh, giving, displaying this comfort so that they are, they, they… I’m aware of this. And the relatives are very thankful that, that I see this before it happens. When I see is, uh, the person, uh, ’cause I, I have a device where I put the… It’s called TPS, transcranial, uh, pulse, um, whatever.

Um, yeah. And, uh, sometimes because of the noise, they become, uh, nervous. Stressed. Uh, yes, stressed, nervous. And I say, “Ah, shall I pause a little bit? Do you like to drink something? Um, can we continue?” So it’s, it doesn’t take a long time. And, uh, they are very grateful to that, that, that I see those little cues-

Zach Elwood: Hmm

Gallia: uh, which can prevent the people to distress Uh, which is a very, very sensitive topic.

Zach Elwood: So you’re say- you’re saying being more aware of how, uh, of how their behavior indicates them being stressed out helps you be more in tune with that and be more caring for them and set them at ease more basically?

Gallia: Yeah, definitely.

Definitely. Mm. And not just there. For example, you’re in a supermarket and you see the cashier is frustrated, uh, because people are rude or were rude, I don’t know. If you go to the supermarket and you say, instead of saying, “Yeah, thank you,” or, “Have a good day,” and you say, “Yeah, I wish you nice customers.”

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Gallia: They look upwards and they, they smile. So like they feel understood, they feel seen. Mm-hmm. They feel like you’re understanding their troubles, their frustration. And, uh, sometimes I get, I don’t know, um, chewing gum for free or whatever. Uh, but it’s not about gain some- getting something for free or influencing the person to give me something.

It, it’s about, uh, feeling, letting them feel comfortable. And-

Zach Elwood: Better c- better connection with

Gallia: people and, yeah. Yes. Definitely. Definitely. It’s, it’s, it, it’s so enriching. It’s, it- Mm-hmm … lets, lets you feel good. People are more open to you, are open to listening to you, what you’re Uh, saying and they are very inter- it’s, it’s a genuine interest on you.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Gallia: And yeah, this is, uh, what it taught me and it works. Mm. It really works. You should try it just once and you will see the difference how people react.

Zach Elwood: In some conversations for the podcast, some people have said that the reason they like, uh, studying the non-verbal behavior stuff is because it allows them to connect better with other people, like you’re saying.

Um- Yeah … I’m curious, do you, do you feel like before you studied the behavior, do you feel like you were not that great at that stuff? Like, you weren’t tu- you just weren’t tuned into, like, the way those kind of, like, signs of discomfort and things like that? Or, or were you like- Yes … or were you a bit tuned into them but not as much as you are now?

Gallia: Uh, yeah. Yes. Yes, definitely. I, I thought always, “Okay, this is a nasty guy.” You know, like, like, like, the biases you have. But because you see them from far away after 20 years, you know he is tense, he’s clenching his fist, he is, his masseter muscle is, is, is tense, and you know he won’t be nice. Okay? Mm-hmm. And then you’re prepared.

So, okay, how, how do I react? Not to how do I response. How do I react to this? Shall I hide or shall I ask for, uh, asking him or, or offering some help?

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: Um, yes, and it was… This changes a lot, so ’cause then after, uh, Joe’s, uh, um, course, uh, I was curious about this person. I- they- it wasn’t a threat to me. I was just curious how can I or what can I do for him that he calms down And sometimes it’s just listening and understanding.

That’s all. So- Hmm … but for this you need awareness and, um, yeah, the discomfort disappear because now I was, I was in control of this.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: Before, people had the control of how I feel because I, I wasn’t aware of this. And now- Hmm … I have the control by myself of how I wanna feel depending of what I’m displaying.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: So, and this changes a lot.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Did, and you, and you, and would you say you’re also more aware of, like, your own, uh, ways that you can manifest or display anxiety? Are you more aware of what your body language communicates to other people?

Gallia: Yes. Yes. I’m more aware, but I’m still learning as it’s, uh, a long path.

For example, if you get triggered by something, um, your amygdala goes wild and sometimes you react before you respond. Yeah, this is a lot of, uh, learning how to control these triggers or how to recognize these triggers first and how to learn, “Okay, so I, I will stop a little. I will give myself permission to pause.”

This is also a big thing. Give yourself permission to pause, and then I can respond properly. Yeah

Zach Elwood: You, you had mentioned, um, NLP, neuro-linguistic programming being kind of popular in Germany. It has- Yeah … I used to, I used to work for a NLP person years ago for, like, six months, and, uh, it did seem to me, ’cause I went with him to a, uh, training in, in London, and he went– he would go to Europe sometimes himself.

But it seemed to me like NLP was much more popular in Europe than it was in America, and I was curious, does that seem right to you? Or were there a lot of… Are there a lot of people in Germany that are into NLP?

Gallia: Yes, a lot. I was studying my psychology, uh, in psychology field. They popularized a lot NLP, and for behavioral, they were just two sentences.

Well, yeah, there is also behavior analysis, but that’s all. So it’s like it’s not as existing here. It’s not existent, th-this field. I don’t know why. Uh, it’s, it’s a mystery for me, also for Joe. Uh, he also noticed that German people, uh, um, refuse to, to, uh, to know something about this. I, I’m not sure why. If it’s, uh, if they are afraid that it becomes popular or because it’s not made in Germany and doesn’t have the quality.

I’m not sure. I just can suggest why it’s like that. But, um, yeah, for me, it wasn’t the way… I, I didn’t want to, to spend my time with this ’cause it, it didn’t convince me at all.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So what you had said you’re doing, uh, are you– am I understanding that, that you’re doing some counseling therapy type work these days?

Is that, was that right? Uh,

Gallia: no. I’m- Oh … doing the, the dementia therapy.

Zach Elwood: Oh, okay.

Gallia: I

Zach Elwood: did- Gotcha.

Gallia: Yeah, I did this before, before, uh, after the, the airport, and I went to the, um- Pharmacology. Mm. Uh, yeah. And, uh, yeah, and while I was there, I was counseling pro bono for- Mm … women who are in toxic relationships.

Zach Elwood: Oh, okay.

Gallia: Um-

Zach Elwood: That’s mean- meaningful work. Yeah, that’s good work.

Gallia: Yeah. And, uh, it’s hard work. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I imagine.

Gallia: Y- yeah. And, uh, yeah, now I’m treating people with dementia. It’s- Mm … uh, also very interesting. Sad, but interesting, uh, because it has a lot in common with the field I’m studying now, and what fails w- in people with dementia, which we normally should have.

And, um, yeah, there are a lot of commonalities. Uh, it- it’s quite interesting. And also, like, uh, the, the, the non-verbals are reinforced, also empathy, and this is also a great skill to have as it’s lacking, I guess, all over the world, but I can speak from Germany. Yeah, there is a big lack of empathy nowadays- Mm

unfortunately. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Do you have any, any other stories come to mind, uh, personal stories about, you know, reading people or making a deduction based on their behavior, uh, in your personal or, or professional life?

Gallia: Um, yes. I, actually I do this every day. It’s, it’s, it’s like, like Joe said, uh, observation is like a muscle, so you can train it and you become better at it.

If you don’t train it, that, yeah, it will disappear. And, um, yeah, what I observe, um, there are so many, uh, examples. I cannot tell you just one. Not a real big one, um, I could tell you. Yeah, it’s, uh, for example, at the airport, it’s, uh, yeah, it’s somebody is lost and, and it’s almost close before crying, and because he’s, or he or she doesn’t speak English and, and, and, and no German, and she doesn’t know where her gate is or where to go and how to ask.

And, uh, yeah, you can approach the person and tr- uh, yeah, with hands and, uh, non-verbals. “Yeah, show me your boarding pass and I will tell you where to go,” or, and you see, uh, there is a relief on them, and you feel good about being able- Mm-hmm … to notice this. Or today, for example, there was a guy, um, elderly guy, and he approached me and he said, uh, “Where can I find this?”

And I told him the way to find this, and he told me, “I asked almost 10 people here in Frankfurt. Nobody gave me an answer, and almost all of them passed me by, so they ignored me. So, like, I was asking for money or I was-” Mm-hmm. You know? And this makes a big difference. So, like, yeah, this makes you, like Joe says, exceptional.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Gallia: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: I was curious, you know, you could kind of separate the behavior space into reading other people and then, like, adjusting your own behavior, like you said, to affect or, uh, influence other people. Uh, d- which do you see, which do you see as more powerful i-in your, at least in your own life, the, the reading other people or the affecting, adjusting our own behavior, if that makes sense?

Gallia: Yeah, it makes sense. Uh- It’s all together. It’s like, uh, like, um, you ca- you cannot separate them. It comes, it works together like a symbiosis. Hmm. It’s, uh, it’s symbiotic and you cannot separate reading people, uh, and adjusting. You, you have to adjust to be able to read a pe- a person. Hmm. So it’s, it’s about empathy.

It’s about observing, observing yourself. How do I interact? Yeah, being, uh, authentic. Authenticity is also b- a huge, uh, topic. Um, like Joe says, if you wanna create comfort, um, s- synchrony. So like synchrony, uh, to be congruent with your non-verbals- Hmm … and your verbals. The way you attire, the way the, the, uh, the way you walk, the way you speak, the congruency.

Synchrony becomes harmony. Harmony creates psychological comfort, and psychological comfort leads to trustworthiness, and this is all about. So if you’re trustworthy, you can Yeah. Yeah Which whatever, whatever you want.

Zach Elwood: I was curious when you, you had talked about, uh, Navarro being congruent. Can you explain the congruency for people that…

I’m not sure I completely understand it. You’re say- I think you would say it means that he’s appearing in ways that match what he’s saying, or maybe, but maybe you could talk about what congruency means to

Gallia: you. Yeah. It’s, it’s the, uh, the way he approach to you. So he practices what he preaches. Uh, for example, when I finished my, um, course with Joe, he gave me, um, um, um-

Zach Elwood: Like a certificate or

Gallia: a- Yeah, a certificate.

Thank you. Yeah. My certificate. Yeah, and he always, uh, in the course, he always said, uh, “It’s so important to get feedback, even if it’s not a comfortable one, and to acknowledge it, and to implement it, and to think about this.” So when I got my certificate, I said, “Joe, um, the certificate, it’s not working for Germany.

It’s, uh, it’s not gonna work. I know in the US they work differently, but this one doesn’t, uh, show you the content of the, the, the, the huge value of the con- it doesn’t reflect the value of y- the content of your, uh, master class. And I need, uh, for example, a number, a student number or the, the stamp of the APA approved.

And, uh, this is what German people look for, you know?” And he said, “Oh, well, this is a good point. Um, yeah, thank you very much for the feedback.” And two days later, I got my new certificate, and he applied it for the next students.

Zach Elwood: So- Oh, and what, he, he had changed something?

Gallia: Yeah, he changed. He- I got a student number.

He, uh, added the APA certificate stamp. Hmm. Uh, as it is APA certificate, uh, or APA approved.

Zach Elwood: Just a quick note here: I actually started digging into this a bit more, as it was something I wasn’t aware of. To quote from Joe Navarro’s site https://jnbodylanguageacademy.com: 

The Joe Navarro Body Language Academy has partnered with Specialized Training Services to co-sponsor the Body Language Expert Program, with 60 CE credits available to approved students upon graduation. Specialized Training Services is approved by the American Psychological Association (APA) to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. Specialized Training Services maintains responsibility for this program and its content.

End quote

It’s unclear to me what this relationship between the APA and this Specialized Training Services organization is. For example, would APA say that they are endorsing Joe Navarro’s training and certification, or would they maybe phrase that in some more nuanced way? If they’d phrase it in a more nuanced way, how would they phrase it and what would that mean exactly? I’m also curious how hard it is to get accredited by this STS organization. I actually sent some questions to these organizations and maybe I’ll hear back. Anyway, back to the talk…

Gallia: Yeah, he took… I, I was, first I was, um, yeah, very kind of afraid of telling Joe Navarro what to do. But he was very thankful for this, and he accepted it, and yeah- Mm-hmm … he didn’t just like for me, so like, “Oh, Galia has a special, uh, she wants a special treatment.” No, he take it, he took it for all the students after me, you know?

Mm-hmm. And this is what I mean, the congruency, what he writes in his book. This is… Maybe he wasn’t aware of this, that, that in some countries they are more strict or whatever.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Gallia: But he-

Zach Elwood: Mm …

Gallia: didn’t took it like, like a menace, but he took it like, uh, yeah, like the feedback he always wishes. And-

Zach Elwood: Right. Part of gaining rapport with people is, yeah, being open to feedback and-

Gallia: Yeah

Zach Elwood: and such. So yeah, yeah, that’s a big part of, uh, coming across as, as-

Gallia: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: as, as likable and authentic and everything, yeah.

Gallia: Yeah. He also says, “Never underestimate likability.” And-

Zach Elwood: Yeah. S- it is a huge factor, yeah.

Gallia: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Do you have anything else that, that comes to mind for, um, for things that we, that you might wanna, wanna talk about that we didn’t talk about?

Gallia: Um, no. If you have further questions, I’m open to them. But, uh, uh, yes, actually it’s just my passion about all of this, and, uh, Joe initiates that. Mm-hmm. And he’s always open for questions. Uh, if I write him, he answers within two days

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: Or he offers, uh, uh, a chat. And this approachability, this is so exceptional.

Yeah. It’s- Hmm … it’s, it’s, uh, impressing. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: I- if you don’t mind me asking, uh, how much did the… You said it was like a nine-month. I assume it was, like, maybe once a week or something, but how much did that, um, course cost, the Navarro course?

Gallia: Uh, I’m not sure. I paid in euros. Um, I guess it was about 4,000 euros.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: So around about

Zach Elwood: that. Was that like a once a week kind of thing or, or was it a-

Gallia: No. I, I spent a lot of time there. Um-

Zach Elwood: Oh …

Gallia: sometimes six hours a day.

Zach Elwood: Oh,

Gallia: wow. Yeah. Uh, as I didn’t want just to read it and finish it, so I want to absorb it, you know? Hmm. It was, uh, valuable, it was also expensive, and there was full of knowledge, uh, which helped me that much, and it was worth every single cent.

Zach Elwood: Oh, one thing I was, one thing I was curious about, I mean, Navarro himself talks about how, you know, um, the non-verbals, you know, there’s, there’s no good evidence that specific non-verbals are tied to deception. You know, there’s nothing like that, but it’s more about getting a read of anxiety, which may be useful in various contexts.

Yeah. But, but I’m curious, do you feel like the training has helped you get better at spotting when someone’s lying? I know that you can’t do, like, a this means that kind of thing, but do you, do you have experiences where you’re, like, more confident in your read that someone’s not telling the full truth?

How has that played out for you?

Gallia: Yes. Yes. Uh, but not because there is a single cue, uh, which shows you deception. Uh, there is nothing like this, like you says, there is no Pinocchio effect. But you’re always communicating. You know, y- you see this when, for example, when you omit saying something, you omit things y- or, or you, you stop within the sentence or you’re repeating something to convince someone from the opposite.

Uh, it’s about the congruency. You, uh, f- first you need a baseline, the baseline for the person to know her when she’s comfortable. Everything what deviates from this baseline, then it’s questionable. It doesn’t mean it’s, she’s not trustworthy or, uh, uh, he’s being deceptive. No, you cannot say that. Uh, for example, if you have a neurodivergent person, so what do you do?

So just because he’s not looking to you in the, uh, directly to the eyes doesn’t mean he’s lying. You know, there are a lot of idiosyncratic behaviors, but you know something is off. Not because he’s lying, but something is different from, uh, what neurotypical people would do, you know? Uh, it’s not just about neurodivergence, but also what normally people would do.

For example, if you’re talking to someone and you say, “I’m a great guy. I, I, I, I’m, I’m an, I, I’m a, actually I should be a hero, but, uh, uh, I’m not a hero. No, I’m normal guy. I’m normal, regular guy.” So, you know, you, you, you notice this incongruency. So, if you’re a normal guy, why should you mention this? If, uh, why should you mention if you’re, uh, that you should be a hero or you’re supposed to be a hero, you know?

These kinds of thing. And also, uh, uh, there is a lot to see about, so your non-verbals, are they matching eye, are they in, in, in sync with what you’re saying? Uh, the speech rate, the voice, pitch, tone, everything. Uh, also context matters, so maybe you’re nervous and you’re trying to explain something different.

Uh, you should see everything at once. There is no single cue of deception. This, yeah, it’s, it’s also what they are emphasizing now in the MSC. Yeah, that’s, they say no, there is no single cue of deception, and it’s not about interpreting, ’cause everyone had different exper-experiences where you could contaminate

Zach Elwood: Hmm

Gallia: the, uh, what you’re interpreting, and yeah.

Zach Elwood: Uh-

Gallia: This, but- I, I

Zach Elwood: was curious, d-does Navarro, uh, I don’t know if you watch, like, some of these people online that make all these really big claims about reading behavior, like Behavior Panel and these kinds of u- online shows. Does Navarro talk about some of those people in his course and how they’re people that really, uh, exaggerate what you can do with behavior?

Does he, does he cover much of that at all?

Gallia: Never. He never- Hmm … expresses, uh, contempt toward others or, or, or, um, speaks, uh, about others. He’s just focused on what he teaches, and then you learn in the right way. For example, uh, he once said, “I will never see one of my students pointing, not even to a chair, with your finger.”

This is not appropriate. This is like me- Oh, this pointing is perceived as rude … it’s like, it’s menacing ‘

Zach Elwood: cause it’s

Gallia: like, like the, like s- a stick like we had before, you know, when we were, we were living in caves, you know? It’s like a menacing. Threatening, yeah. So when… Yeah, it’s threatening. So if you, yeah, if you’re, uh, pointing to s- to a chair, please with your whole hand. So, and it’s a big difference. It gives you comfort.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Gallia: And I see this with my patients. If I say, “Take a seat,” and I do that one, it’s better if I say, “Take a seat.” So it’s like, you know- Right … I’m, it’s a big difference. There are some single things that accumulate. This is what matters. He also mentioned, for example, Disneyland. You will never see a s- a broken bulb in Disneyland.

Why? Because it would, uh, it would, um-

Zach Elwood: Ruin the illusion? …

Gallia: it ruin the magic. Yes.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Gallia: That’s what he said, and so this is, yeah, it’s a good metaphor for, uh, the single, um, yeah, uh, the, the single things that matter.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Thinking about how others perceive you, yeah.

Gallia: Yeah. And not just this, also that you…

It’s not about thinking how others perceive you, so, but acting, uh, and adapting like you wanna be perceived. So act like the person you wanna become.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Gallia: That’s about. Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Well, this is great. Um, yeah, I think I’m good, unless you wanna share anything else. We could, we could wrap it up here. I, I really appreciate you coming on and sharing your, your thoughts and your learnings.

Gallia: Thank you. Thank you very much

Categories
podcast

Is the “behavior expert” industry corrupt? A critical look at Paul Ekman, Joe Navarro, and others

In this second part of a talk with former CIA officer Kent Clizbe, we discuss the exaggerated, irresponsible claims made by many self-described “behavior experts,” focusing especially on Paul Ekman, Joe Navarro, microexpressions, and attempts to detect deception from body language. We discuss why facial expressions and physical movements cannot be interpreted through a universal dictionary, how cultural and individual differences make behavioral judgments especially difficult, and why nervousness or discomfort is rarely meaningful evidence of guilt or deception in high-stakes situations. We examine the failed TSA SPOT program, the influence of shows like “Lie to Me” (which was loosely based on Paul Ekman’s work), and the lack of convincing real-world, high-stakes examples supporting “behavior expert” claims. We also explore how behavioral hunches can contribute to tunnel vision, false confessions, and wrongful convictions; why games like poker can offer a more constrained and useful setting for behavioral reads; and why the most actionable information in high-stakes situations usually comes from what people say, what they leave out, and how their claims compare with known facts.

Related links and a transcript are below.

Episode links:

Resources mentioned in or related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts are generated automatically and will contain errors)

Kent Clizbe: [Paul] Ekman had massive contracts. He had contracts with the CIA, with the DOD, with Special Forces. He was selling his training to them. Then based on that, he got a massive contract with, Homeland Security, DHS, TSA. He had a program called Spot, SPOT. All of these bozos and DHS saw Lie To Me — Lie To Me was Ekman’s TV show — and said, wow, that’s cool. He can read micro expressions and tell who’s lying. We gotta get him. They gave him a contract for Spot. The idea was using Ekman’s micro expressions. He would train TSA officers to use his microexpressions, uh, technique, methodology to identify terrorists… they spent DHS spent $900 million on this program. You know how many terrorists they identified? 

Zach Elwood: How many? 

Kent: Zero. Not a single one

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with Kent Clizbe, a former CIA officer and the author of the book Holistic Contextual Credibility Assessment: A Reality-based Alternative to Deception Detection, which is available on Amazon. In this episode, we talk about the well known behavior researcher Paul Ekman, we talk about Joe Navarro, we talk about micro-expressions, and we talk about the “behavior expert” industry in general. 

This is actually the second part of a talk I had with Kent back in January, eight months ago. The first part of that talk was he and I talking about his efforts to expose Wayne Simmons, who appeared on Fox News for 15 years claiming to be a CIA intel expert but who, I think the evidence clearly shows, was not. You can read about Kent’s role in that story in a NY Times article titled The Plot To Take Down a Fox News Analyst (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/magazine/the-plot-to-take-down-a-fox-news-analyst.html) – which by the way I think is a very bad title, as the use of ‘plot’ sounds like something shady was happening, when it was a highly justified and ethical pursuit of exposing a liar. 

I also featured Kent in another episode of mine; we went through the military career of Chase Hughes, a popular “behavior expert” who has more than 2 million youtube followers and has appeared on major podcasts but who is quite obviously a pathological liar and con artist. With Kent’s experience in CIA and military circles, he helped me examine Chase’s official Navy record and what Chase has said publicly about his life, and we compared the quite banal nature of the reality of Chase’s military career to Chase’s deceptive and frankly delusional depiction of it. 

There are a couple reasons I’ve sat on this episode for so long before releasing it, and I just want to be transparent about those reasons. For a while I thought I actually was not going to release it, but eventually I decided it was an important talk, even just important for me personally. Kent and I’s conversation got me down a path of thinking and was a contributing reason for me ending up deciding to write a general audience book about reading people and reading behavior, which will be called Read People For Real. One of my goals with the book will be to help explain how much bullshit and nonsense there is in the quote “behavior expert” space about nonverbal behavior — and just a note that when I use “behavior expert” it will always be in quotes, as in alleged behavior expert. And the book will give some thoughts on what I think actually matters for making quick reads of people in real-world, high-stakes situations; which is mostly around what people say. So even though I had misgivings about sharing this episode, I ended up wanting to share it because it was important to me, personally, and I think it contains some very good points made by Kent that you will not often hear made. I also did enjoy Kent’s book and it contains some very good points about what actually matters in trying to judge other people’s credibility. 

One reason I didn’t want to share it was because I think Kent himself shares some stuff publicly that I think is very unreasonable and wrong, so I just didn’t want to be associated with him. I’m talking about things I view as harmful, pseudoscientific, and conspiratorial. Honestly, I just didn’t want people asking me, “why are you promoting this guy who has said x, y, and z?” These were things Kent’s posted that I became aware of after first talking to Kent months ago for the podcast. So that was a factor. But eventually, like I said, I thought the conversation we had was important and unique, and because I do agree with Kent on most things in the domain of behavior-reading and so-called “behavior experts.” 

And if there’s anything my work on political polarization has taught me, it’s that it’s okay to view someone as very wrong on some topics, but to view them as intelligent and correct on other topics.

And in some ways I think Kent’s strengths and faults, as I view them, are intertwined; he is, I think, much too pessimistic about some people and their beliefs and motivations— and even as that can be a bad and harmful thing, I think there is an aspect of that that can have positive outcomes sometimes — as I think it was this aspect of his personality that helped him recognize Wayne Simmons as a fraud and to then work hard on exposing him, at a time when nobody else was willing to do that work, and even though that work came with significant personal costs and risks to Kent. To put it another way: Kent is willing to lash out at and harshly criticize people, and sometimes he will be making some good points that should be listened to. 

Another reason I sat on this episode for so long is that it includes Kent saying that the well known “behavior expert” Joe Navarro spreads bullshit and is, to quote Kent, “like Chase Hughes”. Again, if you don’t know him, Chase Hughes is a “behavior expert” con artist I’ve examined and exposed on this podcast; just an egregiously unethical liar who spreads false and exaggerated information about behavior and mind control and a slew of other things, and who has lied about just about every aspect of his past. Now, when Kent compared Navarro to Chase in our talk, I felt the need to defend Navarro a bit, because I didn’t want to seem like I was grouping him in the same category as someone like Chase Hughes. I still think Joe Navarro and Chase Hughes are in entirely separate categories, for a number of reasons, but I will say that after thinking about this topic for these past few months, and doing a lot of reading and research, I have come around to agreeing with Kent saying that what Navarro does in the behavior-reading space is similar to what Chase Hughes does. I do think that what Joe Navarro does is the same thing, basically, as what these other “behavior expert” people do, whether we’re talking about Chase Hughes and the Behavior Panel, or the slew of other people in this space. There is a spectrum of falseness and unethical behavior in there, of course, and I think Navarro is much more truthful and ethical than a lot of these people. But still, what I eventually decided, after thinking about it many months, is that if I said and did the things Joe Navarro has done with his behavior-related work, I would feel highly unethical. I would feel I was unethically deceiving people about the importance of nonverbal behavior. 

Now this is a tough topic to talk about, because many people will say “obviously nonverbal behavior matters” and yes, it’s true; obviously it does; we are reading and interpreting people’s nonverbal behavior every day in our personal and professional lives – in what you might call these various everyday low-stakes situations. And I’d say we often do a pretty good job of it, mostly because in low-stakes situations people aren’t trying to hide their feelings and motives – often people want you to understand what they’re feeling, or sometimes they may not care that much if you get some clues to their feelings. 

But what Navarro and other “behavior experts” do — which I think is where the mistake lies and the unethical aspects creep in — is claim that reading nonverbal behavior is highly powerful in high-stakes, real-world situations; that I think is the mistake, as I think it’s clear that it’s barely useful in those domains. This is because in high-stakes situations, anxiety and other negative emotions are present for many people, not just deceptive and guilty people. This means that a focus on studying behavioral indicators of anxiety and irritation and other feelings, or the lack thereof, are pretty useless in high-stakes situations. This is not to say that we can’t sometimes make defensible deductions about what people’s nonverbal behavior means; it’s just to say that it’s to me clearly not something that is powerful and highly useful, as the standard “behavior expert” claims tend to go.  

What matters the most in real-world, high-stakes domains is what people say, and what they don’t say; that’s where 99% of the actionable information is, in my view: making logical observations and deductions about what people say, and how it stacks up to what is otherwise known. And by the way, that’s also what Kent Clizbe focuses on in his book Holistic Contextual Credibility Assessment. 

Another major factor is that in real-world, non-game scenarios, you cannot base major decisions on small ambiguous nonverbal clues, as the stakes are just too high in terms of harming other people — whereas in game environments, you can often use small behavioral clues to make decisions. This is because games are different from real-world scenarios in multiple ways: from the structured, formalized nature of games, to the low-information nature of games where you can defensibly base decisions on information that is far from 100% reliable because decisions are close and you are lacking better information; to the fact that acting on slim sources of information in games won’t theoretically harm people in real ways. 

One simple fact that shows I’m right about this is that there is a glaring lack of anecdotes and stories of people making use of nonverbal behaviors in high-stakes situations. Even in their own books and videos, behavior experts will struggle to show you examples of how to use nonverbal behavior in high-stakes domains. The examples that do exist are either quite banal, like the kinds of observations that many of us make in our day-to-day social and personal lives; other times, they aren’t even really examples of reading nonverbal behavior, they’re just examples of people doing things and taking actions and acting suspiciously; sometimes there’ll be examples that seem intended to try to exaggerate the usefulness of nonverbal behavior, even though such uses would in practice be indefensible and unreasonable as protocols; for example, claiming that one has based major investigative decisions on small nonverbal clues, like someone’s cigarette shaking or someone’s facial reaction changing when reading a list of murder weapons. There’s a reason such approaches aren’t really used by law enforcement; most people would find the idea of such applications absurd and immoral, and that includes multiple law enforcement people I’ve talked to. 

If nonverbal behavior were truly as powerful as “behavior experts” claim, we’d be surrounded by examples of people using that information in all sorts of ways in high-stakes domains. But we aren’t. On the other hand, we can find many examples of people acting on what people say and do and how that stacks up to reality and known facts, because that’s where the information is. Deciding to focus on the highly ambiguous and hard-to-interpret nonverbal behavior when there is so much information in what people say and do; that would simply be madness. 

These points map over to what research shows us in the deception detection domain: that nonverbal behaviors are faint and unreliable when it comes to spotting deception. Now “behavior experts” will sometimes pay superficial homage to that research, but then turn around and claim that, nonetheless, their training on nonverbal behavior will help you detect deception. They can simultaneously promote their work as helping you detect deception in high-stakes, real-world environments while at the same time referencing that deception detection is hard, based on what the research shows. But the implication is always that, with the proper training — namely theirs – you can nonetheless become strong at detecting deception. If this is rather confusing, you are not missing anything; it is purposefully vague and opaque, because “behavior experts” want to “have their cake and eat it, too.”

If you’d like to read a great paper that talks about this aspect of “behavior experts,” check out a paper by Vincent Denault titled Darwin’s illegitimate children: How body language experts undermine Darwin’s legacy (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365331711_Darwin%27s_illegitimate_children_How_body_language_experts_undermine_Darwin%27s_legacy). Vincent’s paper actually focuses a lot on Joe Navarro’s work, and he also mentions Paul Ekman in there, David Matsumoto’s company Humintell, and more.

Here’s one quote from that paper: 

One way to help the public evaluate what body language experts are saying is to unpack and comparetheir claims with actual research findings. This could, of course, displease body language experts. Yet if they appeal to science, either implicitly or explicitly, they must expect and accept scrutiny. They cannot reject the rules of science, while simultaneously using science as a source of legitimacy.

I interviewed Vincent for this podcast a few months ago, and had a great talk with him; he has an interesting story for being someone who used to be deep in the behavior-reading world, who thought he was on his way to becoming an expert at reading people’s nonverbal behavior – but who eventually realized that much of that world was garbage and turned to the scientific research of behavior. 

There’s a lot more to say here, as the topic of nonverbal behavior is a huge, sprawling topic — and actually, the sprawling and hard-to-talk-about nature of this domain is something that can help defend “behavior experts” from criticism — but that’s to give you a brief rundown of my views on the topic. If you’re curious to hear more, sign up to get updates about this podcast at behavior-podcast.com, and that way you’ll be in the loop about my new book, which will delve deep into the problems in the behavior expert space. 

I’ll also mention that criticizing Joe Navarro, as I’ve done here, is not an easy thing to do for me. For one thing, Joe has said nice things about my poker tells work before. For another thing, after I did my first deep-dive on Chase Hughes in late 2024, exposing his many, many lies and unethical behaviors, Joe called me to thank me for doing that work, and said I’d done a great job on it, and we had a very nice talk. So these were also factors weighing on me with this episode. But eventually I decided that talking about these topics is important, and it’s really an unavoidable topic, if I really want to talk about the nonsense in the “behavior expert” space, which I obviously do. I think there’s something interesting here, too, in how personal associations and relationships can make harsh criticism more difficult. If I hadn’t had a personal conversation with Joe, I would be less hesitant to put out criticisms of him. And I think this is a big factor in the “behavior expert” space, which helps explain the lack of harsh criticism of “behavior experts”. Meeting someone, even once, can dramatically put the brakes on public criticism, and I think this is a factor because there are many alleged “behavior experts” who have mingled with law enforcement people at various events and conferences, and even with some academic behavior people. 

I think another big factor that helps explain the lack of public criticism is perceived authority, and how that also makes criticism more difficult. In talking about this, I have to contend with the fact that many people see Joe Navarro as an esteemed expert on reading and using nonverbal behavior. I know that criticizing him will result in some people criticizing me. This is a reason why some academics avoid talking directly about the bad things “behavior experts” do; I think it’s a reason that Vincent Denault, in that previous paper I mentioned, doesn’t even mention Joe Navarro’s name, even though the paper focuses on him. Few people want the drama that comes with criticizing well known and respected people. 

I have talked to a couple law enforcement professionals who agree with me about “behavior experts” generally and about Joe Navarro specifically, but who have said, to paraphrase: “Joe Navarro is so well regarded that criticizing him publicly would alienate me from too many peers and hurt me professionally; I can’t do it.” One maybe nice thing about me is that I have none of those professional concerns; I don’t have to worry about any impacts to my professional life from calling things as I see it. 

For what it’s worth, I do think that my view of “behavior experts” is the norm in the law enforcement community, and not an outlier. I’ve talked to quite a few law enforcement people for this podcast, both publicly and privately, and I do think these views are the norm. There’s a reason hardly any law enforcement and intelligence agencies these days are using nonverbal behavior stuff, and a reason why it is increasingly rare to find people who can defend making such things any part of an official protocol. It’s just that the exaggerated claims of “behavior experts” spread widely and get a lot of attention, which leads people to assume those views are commonplace. 

Kent and I talk about Paul Ekman in this episode, too. Ekman is a well known behavior researcher who still gets a lot of respect and is still cited a lot. You may know the TV show Lie To Me, which was loosely based on his ideas. His ideas were also used in the TSA airport security SPOT program, which Kent was talking about at the start of this episode. What has stood out to me the last year or so of doing the podcast, in the public and private conversations I’ve had, is just how negatively Ekman is viewed by behavior researchers. Kent’s view of Ekman shared in his book and in this talk, which is also my view, is that Ekman was a deeply unethical person, basically an academic con artist. I don’t think Ekman started that way, but as he got more attention for his ideas, I think he became more unethical in his approaches and claims, and less willing to address the clear failures of his ideas as shown by the research. He did less and less research and made more and more grandiose and detached-from-reality claims. And what I’ve found talking to various behavior researchers is that this is the view that many of them have of Ekman, too, but they just don’t like to talk about that too directly and publicly. I think there is a natural inclination in academia to be very polite, and to restrict criticisms to specific papers, and to avoid even the perception of personal attacks. One researcher I invited on to talk to, who had written criticism of Ekman, said that now that Ekman was deceased, he didn’t want to talk about him and preferred to just talk about his ideas. So I think there are various aspects that have helped Ekman escape much harsh public criticism, and to continue to be highly regarded; although if you search for criticisms of Ekman online, you can start to put the pieces together. I will say that Kent Clizbe’s book is worth reading, even if only for the highly critical section on Ekman’s career. Unlike academics, Kent does not hold back in his negative views of Ekman. I can’t vouch for everything Kent said about Ekman in his book, or in this talk we had, but in my experience Kent’s highly negative view of Ekman is not an outlier in the behavior research community and is more the norm. 

I hope this rather long preface gives some context for why I sat on this episode for so long, and also why I eventually ended up this episode was worth sharing and worth listening to. Hopefully you find it interesting and worthwhile. As with any talk I’ve had for this podcast, or maybe any talk ever, there will be things anyone can criticize and find fault with, but if it makes you think a bit and see things from some different perspectives, it will have been worth it.  

Okay here’s the second part of my talk with Kent Clizbe, author of Holistic Contextual Credibility Assessment: A Reality-based Alternative to Deception Detection. Note that I start this in the middle of a discussion where I had ended the first talk with Kent. He’s talking about his dedication to outing liars like Chase Hughes and helping educate their fans.

Kent Clizbe: I might be up for, uh, starting a new deprogramming service.

Zach Elwood: Well, you know, uh, y- I don’t know if you know, but Chase Hughes claims to be an expert cult deprogrammer too. That’s one of the many things he claims he’s an expert-

Kent Clizbe: You are kidding me.

Zach Elwood: No, that’s one of the things. There’s a Reddit- What a freaking joke

there’s a Reddit thread about, there’s a Reddit thread about him being an expert cult deprogrammer. People are like, “Is he really?” And then, you know, it’s just, he’s claimed to be an expert in literally everything psychology-related. It’s just, it’s so funny, you know? Uh-

Kent Clizbe: Pitiful. Pitiful.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Yeah, so you had mentioned, uh, Ekman there.

Maybe that’s a good, uh, a good segue into, uh, into your book about, um, where you critique, um… Sorry, I’m forgetting the name. What was the name of your book again? Holistic Contextual Credibility Assessment, right. Um, and you, in that book, you make a lot of good points about the amount of bullshit in the behavior space, specifically behavior analysis in context of, like, interrogations and field work and, and things like this.

There are many, obviously many behavior experts out there, behavior experts in quotes, uh, who promote the idea that reading body language, nonverbal behavior in interviews and interrogations in the field for law enforcement and military kind of work. They promote the claims that reading behavior is hugely important.

You know, for example, you’ve got shows like The Behavior Panel, which Chase Hughes is on. You’ve got other, uh, alleged behavior experts who promote this idea that various facial and body language movements are commonly being used by advanced operatives and law enforcement and military, uh, that, uh, that allow them to make deductions and detect deceptions about people and such.

So you’re obviously someone with extensive field experience. And, um, you know, m- maybe you could talk a l- little bit about what value do you see in those ideas about studying body language when it comes to the military and field work, uh, that you’ve done?

Kent Clizbe: Zero. I mean, for normal people, there is virtually no value in trying to figure out what any kind of physiological sign means.

You cannot translate physiological signs, whether it’s eye movements, facial expressions, hands, legs, body. Normal people have a huge variety of physiological movements. A- and that includes blood pressure, pulse, breathing, sweat. Everybody’s different. There is no… A- and different individually, different culturally, different subculturally.

[00:24:00] The vocabulary and, uh, definitions of body movements are totally different across So many different domains that it’s… I, I think it’s insane to try to generalize that there is some kind of generic, um, way of understanding or translating physiological symptoms, movements, body, body function, bodily functions.

They cannot be translated into, uh, emotions or meaning generically. You can individually potentially figure out, “Hey, my wife’s pissed at me because she raised her voice,” or, “She, uh, is not looking at me,” or something. But that’s not… You can’t then s- smear that across all humanity and say that ev- this is what everybody does when they’re angry, or this is the way everybody…

The fa- this is everybody’s facial expression when they’re angry. I learned this because I, I grew up a redneck in North Carolina. I, I, I started, uh, middle school the year after desegregation. Be- before that, there were totally separate Black and white schools. I started sixth grade when they integrated. I was in an 80% Black county.

We’re all Americans, Black and white, we’re Americans. We have a common American culture. But very quickly, I learned the subcultures, including communications, language, uh, bodily movements, uh, behaviors, if you will, are totally different And that, that was my first exposure to cross-cultural communications. I, I, uh, joined the military and became a, uh, uh, a linguist.

I went to, went to school out in Monterey for Vietnamese. So here, here I was out of the, the cotton fields of North Carolina, suddenly transported to California, beautiful Monterey Bay, Defense Language Institute, going to eight hours a day for one year, 40, 47 weeks, um, Vietnamese language immersion. I learned, wow, not only is it language, it is everything about how we interact with other people.

[00:27:00] Facial expressions, it’s body movements. It’s totally different. Vietnamese is totally different, uh, from the, the, the physiological movements and what’s expected and accepted. Totally different from American culture. That began my immersion into foreign cultures. Then went to the Philippines. I lived, I lived in the Philippines for three years working in the military, and I immersed myself in the Filipino culture.

Same thing. The physiological vocabulary, cultural vocabulary, expressions, facial expressions, um, hand movements, totally different. From there, I, my- I married a, a lady from Malaysia. I was immersed in Malay, in Malay culture, Malaysian culture. There’s three main culture- subcultures in Malaysia, Malay, Chinese, and Indian, all totally different.

Just like America, they have a Malaysian culture, but each one of those subcultures has totally different physiological linguistic vocabularies. Worked for a year in Saudi Arabia. I was the only Westerner in a, a, a very rural province, immersed in the, in this, the Arab culture Totally different. From there, went to England.

Lived in England for six months, immersed in, in the British culture. Totally different. We speak the same language, but it was very difficult to communicate with them. The physiological, linguistic, e- even though it’s the, uh, English language, totally different. Moved to Italy. Lived in Italy for six months.

Totally different. Mm-hmm. And then s- since then I, I’ve worked, uh, a- across, across Asia. I’ve, I’ve worked across the Middle East, Africa. I spent five years in a, in Latin American culture as a kid. Anybody with that kind of experience has to say physiological body language, facial expressions, there is no generic universal vocabulary of expressions to express emotion or meaning.

And that’s what Ekman claims. Ekman claims that, and, uh, it ain’t right.

Zach Elwood: What’s, uh… L- yeah, we’ll come back to that. I, I was gonna have, have you clarify though. I mean, in, in your opinion I th- I think you’re also saying that even, say we’re just talking about a specific culture. Like, I would s- uh, I, I would think it would still be your stance that there’s not…

I- it’s really hard, if not impossible usually, to get meaningful information about what somebody’s thinking or if they’re telling a lie from their behavior from… You know, if we’re just talking about non-verbal behavior specifically. I, I think that’s what you’re saying too, but you’re making the point that, like, that’s especially shown when you [00:30:00] take into account all the different kinds of cultures and such that people have, yeah.

Kent Clizbe: So, so the reason I get into that, uh, the, the, uh, debunking Ekman-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Kent Clizbe: about facial expressions expressing emotion is because he, he asserts his hypothesis, and he claims he’s proved it- Mm-hmm … is that it is universal

Zach Elwood: Right

Kent Clizbe: That facial expressions, micro expressions showing emotion are universal, number one.

Number two, he can read those micro expressions. Number three, he can interpret those micro expressions. Number four, he can use those interpretations to detect deception universally. So that’s why I, I give the background of actual universal experience to show that that’s bullshit.

Zach Elwood: A quick note here, there’s a lot of nuance here regarding the idea that there are some universal similarities between facial expressions and how they manifest from underlying emotions.

I actually think there is a lot of truth in the universal facial expression idea, at least in the realm of core basic emotions, but there is a lot of disagreement about that in the research. But I think it’s largely a pretty moot point because it’s possible to think that there can be some core universal facial manifestations that apply well across all cultures, while still believing that even if that were true, trying to make use of such things in a practical way in high-stakes, anxiety-producing environments is extremely difficult.

Put another way, even with what deception detection research shows us about the ambiguity and faintness of nonverbal behaviors in the realm of deception detection, it still might be theoretically true that there are some core universal facial manifestations of emotion. So regardless of the nuance and disagreement around that topic, I think the important practical takeaway is that all that doesn’t really matter.

It’s clear that it’s very hard to make use of facial expressions in high-stakes environments simply because those situations provoke a lot of anxiety and agitation in many people, and also because there are all sorts of personal deviations and randomness Just leaving aside any cultural factors. Okay, back to the talk

Kent Clizbe: But if we, we backtrack to your point, in my system, HCCA, a holistic contextual credibility assessment, the detector, the, the, the operator, the person who’s making judgments, must first assess themselves for contextual competence.

That is, if I am going to be working in the, uh, rap, hip hop subculture of America, am I competent in that subculture? Do I speak their [00:33:00] language? Do I understand all of the… You know, they have complex hand signs, all kinds of stuff that means something to them. If you’re not competent in that context, the context can be a, a national culture, it can be a subculture, it can be geographic, ethnic, religious You must assess yourself, am I competent in this context, first.

Second, if you are and you’re working in that context, you also have to realize that there, even within the con- that context that you’re competent in, there’s no glossary, there’s no vocabulary, there’s no looks to the right, therefore he’s thinking about the past. Looks down, therefore he is retrieving future plans.

It’s all bullshit. There’s no such thing.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Individuals may have some sort of physiological response, and you may be able, once you understand that individual, you may be able to begin reading his physiology. A, a great example, uh, of that is, for example, the polygraph. The polygraph is measuring physiological responses, breathing, blood pressure, and sweating.

Skin gal- galvanic- Galvanic s- galvanic skin

Zach Elwood: response, yeah …

Kent Clizbe: which, which, which means how much you’re sweating.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: It’s measuring how much you’re sweating. It was designed with a specific culture in mind. If you think about it, it is a culture that at the time was based on shame. If you’ve done something wrong, you’re ashamed, you’re guilty.

You know? Like, it’s sort of like the, a Catholic, uh, uh, uh, choir boy is, is probably the perfect subject for a polygraph. They’ve gone through training their entire life to make them ashamed of having sinned, having done something wrong. And then once they feel that shame, they go and they confess. If you’ve, if you’ve grown up in that culture, you are used to responding to shame or to guilt.

If you’re in a subculture where, uh, where, where shame and guilt have been denigrated or, or, uh, deprecated, where, uh, well, yeah, man, whatever goes. Yeah, do what, do whatever, whatever floats your boat. You’re not gonna start sweating, “Oh my God, I’m gonna have to tell the priest on Saturday.” No you’re not.

You’re never gonna have to tell anybody

Zach Elwood: And plus people might start sweating for any given reason. They might be nervous for- That- … all [00:36:00] number of reasons or feel weird- Exactly … for a

Kent Clizbe: number of reasons. So, so-

Zach Elwood: A quick note here, I recently had the opportunity to take a polygraph for my own research purposes, and that’s something I might talk about at some point for this podcast.

That experience did actually increase my respect for the polygraph in terms of seeing its power firsthand. I was actually impressed, although in some other areas I was not impressed. I also read a very interesting book titled Gatekeeper, which is a memoir by a CIA polygraph examiner, and that also increased my respect for the polygraph.

All that said, my stance on the practical usefulness of polygraphs has not changed. It’s still obviously a fallible machine, and there’s a good reason polygraph results are not allowed in a criminal court of law. I still would basically never voluntarily take a polygraph. But the nuance around the polygraph is actually a good point about making use of behavioral information generally.

Even if one acknowledges that the polygraph can get some impressive results, the underlying question is when is imperfect information actually actionable? Even if the polygraph were somehow 95% accurate, it would still be considered too fallible to do much with and would still not be good as evidence.

Many debates about making use of behavioral information are really at their core about this underlying question of when is imperfect information, information that may have some general validity but be known to be far from 100% reliable, when is that information actually actionable? Okay, back to the top.

Kent Clizbe: I, I, I don’t wanna say that there’s no physiological response that can be associated with a certain emotion or lying, but there is no generic, general, universal-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Kent Clizbe: and, and, and that’s wh- that’s why I go into that, it- my experiences globally. Once you have- Yeah … the global experience, it can also be applied to any, any specific subculture.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. And I do, I think, I think you have a great, uh, f- people interested in, in, in these things and behaviors and making practical use of it. You have a great takedown of Ekman and, and the whole general concept of this, uh, so I do recommend people check that out. And, and you’re not the only one obviously.

I mean, there’s academics who criticize Ekman. There’s all, all sorts of people who have criticized Ekman. I’ve talked about Ekman on my podcast with Tim, uh, Levine, who’s a respected, uh, behavior and deception detection researcher, you know, criticizing, uh, his work. So, uh, just to say, yeah, it’s, it’s… it, it very…

you make very good points. And, uh, so yeah, let me, let me pivot to, um, you know, I often get people asking me for my takes on using, making practical use of body language. I mean, I’ve worked on poker tells. That’s like my main claim to fam- fame is my, you know, the fact that I’m a former pro poker player for a few years and I wrote some books on poker tells, which, uh, you know, I, I’ve sold a lot of copies of those and, and such.

And I also have this [00:39:00] podcast where I talk about behavior and psychology. So I often get people asking me like, “Hey, what resources do you recommend for making use of behavior in these, you know, real world situations?” So, and I always strive to make clear, and, and this is not a answer people find very satisfying, but I, I strive to make clear that in real world scenarios, if we’re leaving aside the game and the sports stuff, which I think is a very different section because games and sports are very formalized environments.

You have very specific goals, like granular goals you’re trying to achieve at any given time, et cetera, et cetera. I think if we’re leaving aside that context, which, you know, I do believe there’s a lot of value in those contexts. If we’re talking about real world non-game scenarios where it’s like interviews, interrogations, field work, whatever, I, I, I tell people like, “I don’t think there’s anything that valuable to study there.

Uh, I, I, I think you’re much better off studying, you know, how to make logical deductions of the things people say and do.” If you really wanna delve into some behavioral stuff, like check out like, um, verbal or written statement analysis, which I do think is interesting, but it’s still, I think by far the, the most useful thing is the thing, kind of things you’re talking about in your, in your book where it’s like you need context and you also need to make logical deductions about, you know, what, why is someone saying what they are?

What i- what is the story they’re telling? What are they leaving out? You know, the- these kind of logical deductions and like a- as you and I and others have talked about, there’s, it’s just very hard to take these minute pieces of nonverbal behavior and make anything useful out of them. And I, I, I think we’re on the same page there, but I wanna see, you know, do, would you say we’re on the same page?

Kent Clizbe: I think so. I, I have not looked into the, uh, the domain that, that you’re an expert in, that very, uh, constrained sports-

Zach Elwood: Game …

Kent Clizbe: competition sort of communications. It makes sense to me that in, in that very constrained world of game-based communications, you’re, you’re dealing with a much, uh, smaller set of, uh- Uh, what?

Variables, I guess Yeah That it makes sense.

Zach Elwood: A quick note here. If you’d like to hear an episode dedicated to differences in reading and making use of behavioral information in game versus non-game environments, check out an episode I shared recently on my podcast. It was a talk that I did with the Deductionist Podcast.

Back to the talk.

Kent Clizbe: I can tell you for sure that, that in the larger real world of communications, whether it’s a, a, a cop sitting down to, uh, question somebody in, in a interrogation room Or it’s an intelligence officer meeting someone at a, at a, a reception, a diplomatic reception for the first time, or it’s a [00:42:00] immigration officer encountering s- a, a traveler trying to come in the country.

Even though each of those has, i- is constrained in some way, uh, it’s really wide open. It’s social- Mm-hmm … cross-cultural communications. I, I’ve been in every one of those situations I just described except being a poker player, a- and, uh, I can tell you there was zero value in trying to figure out why his eyebr- his left eyebrow just raised-

Zach Elwood: Yeah

Kent Clizbe: or why he crossed his legs, uh, at the ankle, not at the knee, or it … Zero. Zero.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: I- and if you start focusing on that stuff, you’re losing the real, what you should be focusing on, which is the, uh, information that, that you’re gathering from him.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm,

Kent Clizbe: mm-hmm. It’s sort, you know, at, at the end of, uh, for an intelligence officer when, a human intelligence officer, you meet somebody, you elicit information, you talk with him, you build rapport, you create a relationship, um, through a meeting or series of meetings.

Y- each time you meet a subject, you write up a report. You may mention, “Seemed kind of nervous,” or, “W- was very emotional,” or ev- when, when he talked about his mother who’s dying, uh, it, it really, he start, he teared up. But you’re not, there’s no value to record, uh, in your report, uh, what micro expressions you saw, what his facial expressions were, what his body movements were.

Anybody who knows what they’re doing doesn’t. There’s probably people who do, I don’t know, but, uh, there, there’s, there’s no value in that. It’s all about the overall holistic. That’s what I, my, my system is holistic, contextual credibility assessment. It’s the overall. It’s taking everything into account.

Zach Elwood: I think you and I are similar on this, and I think you mention this in your book.

I mean, when I hear somebody telling me that they have some strategy for making some Doing something, you know, whatever it is, making some practical use of something like behavior, my first question is, “Well, show me examples of how you use this,” right?

Kent Clizbe: Give me a case study. Let’s, let’s hear it.

Zach Elwood: And ex- and the simple fact is when you read all this behavior stuff or listen to these behavior panel guys, whoever it is, these people telling you that you can make use of all these behaviors, you won’t find any consistent example or, or like any, any real practical example of how they’ve actually used this, you know?

And that, and that’s really what’s lacking. It’s like… And this goes for, you know, like you got Chase Hughes. He makes all these just completely outlandish claims about what you can do with behavior, including [00:45:00] like, you know, he also goes into- Show me, buddy. Yeah, it’s like- Show me.

Kent Clizbe: Tell,

Zach Elwood: show- Even when you read his-

show me

Kent Clizbe: a case where you did that.

Zach Elwood: Even when you read his Ellipsis manual, which is complete horseshit, it, y- you know, he, he, he can’t even come up with examples of how he… You know, it’s like you read through it and you’re like, “Where are the practical examples of how you’ve actually used this,” you know?

And he’s a serial liar. He can’t even like come up with something to like put in there of like, “Here’s how I’ve actually…” You know?

Kent Clizbe: I mean- Yeah, he can’t make something up and put it in there.

Zach Elwood: He makes, he makes some, he makes outlandish stuff up, but it’s all like clearly like, uh, imaginary or like conceptual, you know?

But, but that’s an, an extreme example.

Kent Clizbe: But- Hypothetical.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, hypotheticals, like… But, but then, you know, you go into… I mean, even, even people that are more respected, I won’t name any names, but there’s people that have worked in law enforcement and such that, that do, you know, claim that they’re behavior experts, but you read their stuff too, you won’t find practical examples of how they’ve used this stuff.

It’s like all very… Unless it’s like really obvious, where it’s like… That’s what I was gonna say, too. The, if you go in, you know, the, the defenders of this stuff can always point to extreme examples. So to name a few extreme examples, like sure, people can behave in, in very suspicious ways. Like for example, like you’re in- you’re interrogating somebody whose wife died, and they’re acting like they’re crying, but no tears are coming out, right?

Like that’s an extreme example. Or someone who’s like completely not showing, uh, any emotion and maybe even like laughing or smiling in inappropriate ways. Like, these are, these can be extreme examples o- of things. Or somebody just like acting catatonic when they’re being interviewed, which is another ca- you know, famous case of an interrogation.

So just to say, there can be extreme examples where behavior play a role, but by and large, we’re, you know, m- almost all the information comes from, you know, what are, what are people actually communicating? And like- Even, even, uh, y- you could even class, uh, you know, it comes down to their words. ‘Cause even if you have a hunch about somebody’s behavior being suspicious, that’s almost never gonna be meaningful in a way if you don’t have other things, like about the story or about the context to back up your hunch, right?

So, but curious what you

Kent Clizbe: said all about- The problem with those, with those case studies you just cited, you know, the, the e- extreme not crying or crying without tears or being catatonic, everybody responds differently- Yeah … to, to crisis.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: To, to, to situations. The, those kind of things I, I, I looked at when I started, started really delving into and researching, uh, deception detection, and in my book I have a small section on it, is false confessions a- and interrogations that, that induce people to confess falsely.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: Uh, the Reid technique was, was one of the, one of the ways that happened. They, they’re doing less and less of it. But it’s all, it was, those are all based on cops’ hunches that, oh, he’s, he’s not reacting, you know, his wife just died, but he’s not reacting right. [00:48:00]

Zach Elwood: A quick note here. If you’re curious about what we’re talking about here, you can look into what’s called a behavioral analysis interview, which is part of the Reid technique, and which involves looking for small non-verbal indicators to responses.

Back to the talk. Right.

Kent Clizbe: Many people have b- that they then become, they focus on, “He, okay, he’s our only suspect.” The murderer, turns out it was a guy just walking by, saw the window open, climbed in and killed her. And, you know, there’s no, no obvious motive. There’s no obvious connection.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: But they, the cops, because their, their hunch about his behavior wasn’t right, now they’re totally focused on him.

And people have been arrested, tried and convicted wrongly-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Kent Clizbe: based on hunches like that. So I, I, I say- Yeah, so even for- Yeah, maybe there are… See, see, the, the cops will say, “Hey, the dude confessed,” or, “He was convicted. Ha ha. Check.” Well, w- 20 years later- False confessions, yeah … it, it was overturned. Yeah.

You know, especially now with, with DNA, many, many, uh, bad convictions, false confessions, cops railroading somebody, cops going on these hunches based on behavior, based on whatever, and then they throw the whole weight of the, uh, uh, of, of the justice system behind them and-

Zach Elwood: It, uh, yeah, to your point, it’s like even for the extreme examples of, of non-verbal behavior that somebody might think is suspicious, even for those you’re often gonna be wrong.

So which, you know- You’re

Kent Clizbe: often …

Zach Elwood: how can you trust these, like, all these little micro things that are, like, not even- You

Kent Clizbe: can’t. Yeah. And that’s my point- Yeah … is you can’t, and people have suffered because of it. People’s lives have been lost. People have been convicted, imprisoned. Uh, decisions are made, uh, i- in immigration interviews.

Uh, intelligence operations are, uh, are, are, are initiated and run and stopped based on bullshit.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Again, as you said, show me you’ve got this technique. Give me a real, uh, confirmation that your technique works. I don’t, I, I don’t see… Like you said, there’s no case studies.

Zach Elwood: No.

Kent Clizbe: Except in my book, I, I give multiple case studies, a- as well as a couple failures where my system didn’t work.

Uh, but I admit it, and I s- I explain why.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: I, I, I make the point that my expertise is not academic. Like, although I’ve gone back and researched all of the background, once I, once I developed my own system, once I realized that, uh, in, in my various roles that these, uh, body-based, [00:51:00] physiological-based credibility assessment doesn’t work, I developed my own system.

Not only did I run… Did I use that system inside intelligence, and I used that system to, uh, and I give case studies in my book, to expose what were bad operations that were based on deception, that, that other, uh, officers a- and the entire system had been running these, these cases for years in many cases.

But when I looked into it a- and looked into it at holistically, I identified, uh, these bad cases. I give those, those examples. But also, I t- I, I believe that the most, um, most valuable case studies are when I, I was a headhunter. I was a, an executive recruiter And I only made money, I only got paid, I was on a commission basis.

I had clients who would pay me if they hired a candidate that I brought to them. When they hired the candidate, I ga- they paid me, and I gave them a 100% guarantee, six months, because after six months things can change hugely. A person can change. But for the first six months, I’ll give you 100% money back if this person is not ready, willing, and able to do the job that you want.

So what that required for me to give that guarantee that my livelihood was based on, to give that guarantee, I had to have a vetting system. I met hundreds, thousands of candidates, and I ha- I had to have a system that worked in reality. Re- uh, it’s real, hard, cold, hard reality cash. My, uh, livelihood, supporting my family was based on me being right.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: And I never had to pay that. I never had to pay it. So my system of vetting was holistic, contextual credibility analysis. S- I would identify a person, and then I would talk to them. I would gather data. Start with the resume. Go down the resume and you find a- all of their experience, their education.

Let’s see, uh, uh, send me your transcripts. Give me some references. Who did you work with in this place? What was your job? What was your experience? I have a conversation with them. I gather data. 99.9% was virtual, was either on the phone or, uh, through written communications, emails usually. Email and, and on the phone I didn’t see them.

I didn’t see how they twitched when they told me they went to [00:54:00] Stanford. I don’t know. Did he look up or down when he said it? Frig if I know. All I know is I’ve got that information and now I can vet it. I can do a logical analysis of does it make sense that this guy went to Stanford? So when I give a case study, my case study is based on my life was depend- depended on my system working.

Cops, academics, intelligence officers, it doesn’t matter. Nothing they do matters. Intelligence officers, dozens, hundreds, a huge chunk of cases are bad. It’s all hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Nobody can dig in and open up, uh, these cases and say, “Look, you’re wrong here.” And inside they… There’s no incentive to identify bad cases.

When I inside identified bad cases, 100% of the time I would be attacked. The pe- the people who had been running the case for years or who had started the case, it, it’s, it’s like they see it as an attack on them. They were, their judgment was bad and had been bad for many years and there was a lot of bad results Nobody ever thanked me inside for, uh, exposing or dropping a bad case, but I was attacked virtually every time

Zach Elwood: A quick note here.

Reading that CIA polygraph examiner’s memoir, which was titled Gatekeeper, was really eye-opening and related to what Ken is talking about here. That book details so many cases where intelligence assets were faulty and were lying, and there was a lot of pressure on the people who brought in those assets and trusted those assets to defend those choices.

They were resistant to being shown that those assets were not credible and not trustworthy. It’s a really fascinating read about such things, let alone for the information about the use of the polygraph. Okay, back to the talk.

Kent Clizbe: So that’s just a, a, a way of saying that when you hear about, uh, uh, inside i- in- intelligence successes, take that all with a grain of salt.

Zach Elwood: Well, I think, uh, you know, similar to what you’re saying, you know, getting, getting feedback on your reads, like, you, you, and there has to be accountability and provability for, for your reads for something- Exactly … to mean something. I, I think there’s a similar thing in games and poker and sports and such where it’s like, for examp- I’ll give you an example.

Uh, like I was on a live stream poker, uh, playing poker once, and I made a fold based on a verbal tell, and people were like, “Oh, that was a tough fold. How would you make that?” And, and it’s like, well, I could make that same read with the, from that same tell in many situations, and I could do that on camera even on a, in a game, and I could show how it’s valuable over the long term.

You know, but the more accountable and provable something is, [00:57:00] the more valuable it is. And I, yeah, getting back to the… I, I think when people make claims about how to use stuff, especially like impressive sounding claims, you really need to dig into what, what are the examples they’re giving you? And like this behavior panel on these kinds of shows, the fact is they just go and talk about a bunch of ambiguous things that could go many different ways, and at the end of the show, you’re like, “Well, I’m not really sure how I would, I would make use of any of the stuff they said,” right?

And that’s what, you know, getting back to you being, you know, you b- you being driven by being lied to, it’s like, it makes me angry because I’ve, I, I go out of my way, like in the poker tell space, it’s so much less important than like real world stuff. But I go out of my way to say like, “Hey, you might only use these things very occasionally.

You might go for a long time and never base a decision on a read in poker,” for example, because these things are ambiguous often. They’re far from reliable. You have to look for specific spots where you’re comf- comfortable using that, that specific behavior. But like these people just make these grandiose claims about real world things that impact people’s lives, you know, that, that are, that are causing people to think that they’re amazing readers of people when really they’re just promoting, you know, people are just using this bad info to, uh, basically exaggerate their own biases.

Because they’ll be like, they’ll watch some footage of, like, Meghan Markle or somebody, and they’ll be using this bad information to be like, “Oh yeah, see, I learned that on Behavior Panel. I know she’s a compulsive liar.” And it’s like all these just bad- Yeah … reads and promoting, you know, people who think they know what they’re doing.

And then it, you know, leave it, l- let alone, like, how it seeps into, like, intel or law enforcement kind of stuff, and is even more damaging. Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: So, so the problem is, is it does.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: It does. Ekman had massive contracts. He had contracts with the CIA, with the DOD, with Special Forces. He was, he was selling his training to them.

Then based on that, he got a massive contract with Homeland Security, DHS, TSA, uh, Transportation Security Administration. He had a program called SPOT, S-P-O-T. I forget what it stands for, but what it was, they, uh, all of these bozos in DHS saw Lie to Me and said, Lie to Me was Ekman’s TV show, and said, “Wow, that’s cool.

He can read microexpressions and tell who’s lying. We gotta get him.” They brought him in. I, I did a, a, a Freedom of Information Act and got thousands of pages, uh, of the, their interactions, DHS interactions with Ekman. All of the financial stuff is blacked out, but what, what you did see is they were inviting him to these internal conferences.

They would all fly down to Miami, everybody from all over the country, stay in a five-star hotel and, and have three days of speakers, and Ekman would be the main speaker. They [01:00:00] did such things like that. Uh, after a, a, a few times of that, they gave him a contract for SPOT. SPOT was, the idea was using Ekman’s microexpressions, uh, he, he would train TSA officers to use his microexpressions methodology to identify terrorists passing through immigration lines to get, get on, uh, airplanes, get on transportation throughout the US.

In, I, I, I wanna say it was, like, five years that it was in existence, he got $900 million. They s- well, they spent $900

million. I c- I haven’t been identify, able to identify how much money he got, but they spent, DHS spent $900 million on this program. You know how many terrorists they identified?

Zach Elwood: How many?

Kent Clizbe: Zero. Not a single one. At the same time, multiple terrorists we know, because they ended up carrying out operations, terrorist acts, passed through these spot-trained officers.

So this is, uh, one of the very few case studies of one of these bogus techniques.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: It was a total failure. Total failure. It didn’t work. It, I… They, they would pull aside people, um, who were nervous for, nervous about flying. They, he, they, he had a checklist. He gave them a checklist of micro… And they, they went through his microexpression training, and then he had another checklist.

And then after a couple years they tweaked it, and it seems like they even dropped microexpressions because it’s… Microexpressions are, are, are, maybe they’re useful if you’re studying a frame-by-frame video of someone. Even then, n- I Again-

Zach Elwood: No evidence I’ve, no evidence I’ve seen that they’re useful. I mean, yeah,

Kent Clizbe: I- In, in a one-on-one, real time s- uh, going through an immigration line, totally useless.

Zach Elwood: A quick note here. If you’re curious to hear a criticism of microexpressions, check on a recent episode of this podcast where I talk to Maria Hartwig and Christian Corey. But long story short, there is no evidence that microexpressions as Ekman conceived of them even really exist, and there’s evidence against being able to use them for any practical purpose like deception detection.

It might be worth noting that despite this and other failures in his ideas, Ekman in Congressional testimony about the SPOT program in 2011 said that his team had attained, quote, “Between 80 and 90% identification of who was lying and who was telling the truth.” End [01:03:00] quote. Based on my knowledge of this area and having talked to behavior researchers privately about this, I think Ekman basically perjured himself in a major way with that statement, and I think that says a lot about the problems with his work and ideas overall.

I hopefully will get to talk to someone soon about that Congressional testimony he gave, as I think it’s a rather interesting story. It might be interesting to note that one major reason why Ekman got so much mainstream attention, and what led to him having so much power, was him being featured in Malcolm Gladwell’s 2005 book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking.

Gladwell, rather gullibly in my view, just trusted what Ekman claimed about his research, and basically hugely promoted Ekman as an amazing reader of people, and that in turn led to his mainstream popularity, the TV show Lie to Me, and Ekman’s large government contracts. Back to the talk.

Kent Clizbe: So they, they, seemed like they later kinda condensed their approach to, you know, does he look nervous?

It was sort of their checklist. And it, it-

Zach Elwood: Right. And there, there’s some good exposes about there, I mean, about that if people are interested. There was an Intercept article in 2015 called TSA’s Secret Behavior Checklist to Spot Terrorists. Yeah, SPOT was s- short for screening of passengers by observation techniques.

Yeah. A quick note here. As stated, I think a lot of this stuff can be hard to talk about because the term behavior is so sprawling. The failure of studying facial expressions and micro expressions and such does not take away from the argument that it can be valuable to look for other behavioral things.

For example, the actions people are taking, whether they’re loitering in suspicious areas or whether they’re carrying suspicious and unusual objects. The sprawling domain of the concept behavior can lead to people saying, “Well, of course, we should study and observe behavior,” where behavior means literally everything someone might say and do.

So it’s good to emphasize that we’re talking here about a specific subdomain of nonverbal behavior largely facial expressions and movements and postures of the body and such. Back to the talk

Kent Clizbe: So in, in my book I have a section on Ekman, ’cause it really, running across Ekman being touted and, and being, uh, students, human intelligence officers training in, in the military, um, and, and the military paid for them to use Ekman’s training.

It just really, uh, flipped my switch and that, that’s sort of what got me, uh, focused on, on him. But anyway, the, the, the point here is that this is a, a very unusual public demonstration of the absolute unusefulness of behavior observations. Totally useless. Almost a billion dollars. Most other law enforcement and intelligence, uh, applications, [01:06:00] you know, Ekman was trained, quote-unquote, “training people” throughout the governments, local, state, national, intel, military.

That’s all internal and nobody ever sees it. You, you’re never able to actually see the results or lack of it. The failure of SPOT was a very unusual, but it’s a total humiliation for people who think this works. I have references. I have bibliography and footnotes that all of the, like you just mentioned, those reports are all there.

I want to say one other thing, behavioral approaches. Who, who’s the, the, the law enforcement sort of, uh, accepted king or, or the, the, the gold standard of behavioral assessment? It’s the FBI’s behavioral, I forget what they’re called- Profile? … behavioral something. The FBI does great PR, you know, they ha- they are tied at the hip with, uh, movies, with TV, with, uh, journalists, and they feed them all of their, uh, all of this, uh, great PR.

Let’s look at a couple case studies. The, the, I think the best one, the perfect one of how useless they are, what are they? They’re profile- profilers. They, they call themselves profilers. Do you remember, it must have been the early 2000s, like 2005, 2006, there was the, the DC sniper.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: There were cases, people would, uh, be pumping gas at a gas station and be cut down by rifle fire.

People walking on the street cut down by rifle fire Uh, just random sniper attacks. It got to where everybody… And it was across the, the Washington, DC area. Huge, high-profile, the whole place, everybody’s paranoid. So this is perfect for… And, and they can’t, they, they can’t find it. They don’t, they don’t have suspects.

They can’t… It turned out the shooting was coming from a long ways away. You can’t even tell where the fire’s coming from. They’re shooting from, you know, several hundred yards at least, maybe more. So hey, here we go. FBI behavioral assessment unit. Let’s get a profiler in. They put out a profile. It’s a, uh, a, a white guy, disaffected white guy, blah, blah, blah.

All total bullshit. Ended up being a, a, a Black Muslim homosexual, and his… And, oh, oh, and there was, he was also, the, the profile was he’s a loner. It was a, a, a, a, a Black American Muslim homosexual who’s pissed off at his ex-wife, and he’d r- he had recruited a teenage boy, was his lover, and trained him to, to shoot out of [01:09:00] the…

They, they knocked out a hole in the back of, of their big old American car trunk, and the kid lay in the back of, in the trunk and shot, shot out the hole, uh, from several hundred yards away. Profile was totally wrong, totally wrong.

Zach Elwood: So is it your stance that there’s zero benefit even in the, the profiling in general too?

Kent Clizbe: Virtually zero. Hm. Virt- they, any- look at the case studies. They, they hide the case studies. Hm. It’s all hidden, and then they cover it up with their PR. You know, they crank out these TV shows that are, you know, that in every single episode, the, the profilers, uh, you know, have it exactly right and, you know, uh, FBI heroes come in and swoop in and get the bad guy.

Zach Elwood: A quick note here. I don’t pretend to know the accuracy and success rate of behavioral profiling, but if you’re curious for criticisms of profiling, check out a 2007 article by Malcolm Gladwell for The New Yorker titled Dangerous Minds. It goes into the highly shaky scientific foundations of profiling I think this relates to my previous point about the polygraph and behavioral information in general, though.

Many of these discussions are really at their core about how actionable imperfect information really is. For example, let’s say that behavioral profiling did have some above average success rate, like say it was, I don’t know, fifty-five percent accurate, a bit above chance. Would that be actionable? Might it be useful in the right context, even knowing it was highly imperfect?

It might be if people took into account its flaws and didn’t rely too heavily on it. Again, I don’t pretend to know much about profiling, but a single case study failure or even many case study failures don’t necessarily tell us anything about the overall accuracy of any practice or technique. So I think if more people discussed this underlying question more openly and it wasn’t often just a simple discussion of either it works very well versus it has a lot of failures There’d be better discussion of risk assessment and risk analysis.

Back to the talk. Hey, I wanna come back to that, actually. I want, I, I, I wanted to talk about, um, why people can think there is value, why practitioners especially can think there’s value in studying non-verbal behavior. Uh, one thing that strikes me there that I don’t think, I haven’t really seen anybody talk about is I think there can actually be muddled ideas even for practitioners about what they’re spotting and if it’s behavior related or actually related to the content of what people are saying.

So for example, if you’re a police officer doing an interrogation, if somebody’s giving you a, a, a, a story that doesn’t make sense, you might afterwards start thinking like, “Oh, they were acting funny in various ways,” right? Yeah. And so in your mind it can be muddled about what’s behavior related, like non-verbal behavior related, and what’s actually related to the content.

Kent Clizbe: Absolutely.

Zach Elwood: So maybe you

Kent Clizbe: could- Absolutely.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. What do you, what do you think about that idea? I just haven’t seen people talk about that. I

Kent Clizbe: think- Well, well let me, let [01:12:00] me give you an, an excellent observation. Well, I say excellent ’cause it’s my observation, but there, there’s this dude out there, uh, he’s like Chase Hughes, Joe Navarro.

He’s got books everywhere. He’s all, he’s got a YouTube. He’s blah, blah, blah, blah, behavior, behavior, behavior, behavior, body language, body… I don’t know what he calls himself, but he’s a profiler. He’s an FBI profiler. To me, the, the, the like the ultimate denigration of his, and I say it professionally, bullshit, is he’s got a, uh, a YouTube video, I think it’s like six minutes, where he, he riffs on the nonsensical, totally unproven, totally wrong, uh, canard that 80% of communication is, uh, non-verbal.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. That’s-

Kent Clizbe: Is that- …

Zach Elwood: major, major bullshit. Like, uh, many people repeat- It’s

Kent Clizbe: total bullshit …

Zach Elwood: many people repeat that. And he- Yes … you’re saying he, you’re saying he was acting as if that was a

Kent Clizbe: good- He has his… Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean it’s, his entire shtick is based on non-verbal. You know, he talks about crossing legs and looking this way and your hand movements.

It’s all bullshit. There’s no physiological tell, period. So the six minutes, his point is 80% of communication is non-verbal. Huh, let’s see. And it, this is, this is proving your point that these people have a, uh, they’re confusing what, what they’re see- you know, what, what is their clue- Logically deducing versus…

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Kent Clizbe: logical versus body language. He… So logically, if 80% of communication is non-verbal and he’s gonna talk, he, he’s gonna communicate that for six minutes. Shouldn’t he be 80% of six minutes, four and a half minutes, four minutes? Shouldn’t he be just mouth shut- Communicating non-verbally? Just look at the logical inconsistency there.

He’s communicating. How is he communicating? Verbally.

Zach Elwood: Content, yeah.

Kent Clizbe: 100%. And when he’s sitting there… And, and it just, it blows my mind

Zach Elwood: that this guy, he doesn’t- Well, you can listen to the audi- You can listen to people’s audio and get the same information, right?

Kent Clizbe: It blows my mind that this guy… It, it’s, it’s cognitive dissonance.

In his mind, he, he’s, his message is 80% of communication is non-verbal, but he verbalizes that. He communicates verbally the fact that 80% of communication is non-verbal.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Kent Clizbe: And his non-verbals in this six minutes is, you know, he’s, he’s twitching, he’s moving, he’s crossing his legs. You know? What the hell? Look at it logically.

If 80% of communication is non-verbal, what the hell are you saying, buddy? What is your message in this six-minute video? [01:15:00]

Zach Elwood: A quick note here, the idea that most communication is non-verbal is a well-known fallacy and myth among people who are serious about studying behavior. If you’d like to hear an episode where a guest of mine delves into that, check out a conversation that I had with Elizabeth Stokoe, who is a conversation analysis researcher.

Or just search online for criticisms about the idea that most communication is non-verbal. There are many of those you can find. Okay, back to the talk. In Joe’s slight defense, I, because I do mostly agree with you that there’s not much practical use to this, I, I, I will make a distinction between the, on the spectrum of, uh, bullshit, I think, uh, Joe Navarro, I, at least I’ve seen him say, like, it’s very hard to make use of this, and sometimes you’re just getting a vibe of somebody’s discomfort, which might, you know, m- may not make you, like, fully confident someone’s lying, but might make you ask another question or two.

So in his defense, I- Why

Kent Clizbe: is he talking about it if it’s not useful? His entire career is based on it. He’s the body language guy. It’s not useful? Okay, then shut up, dude.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I mean, and getting, and getting back to the looking for practical examples of how people use this, I mean, I, I think, uh, I, I f- I’ve had the same experience of looking for those practical examples and just…

You know, one that, one that came to mind from his book was, like, he was talking about when he was a kid, somebody was standing by the cash register at a store and, like, staring at the cash register, and I was like, but that’s not really nonver- you know, he was getting a sense that somebody might rob the cash register.

I was like, but that’s, like, just basic deduction of someone look- looking at a cash register. I mean, that, that’s not really related to, uh, you know, non-verbal behavior to me. It’s like, it’s like, it’s like blurring the lines between, like, just blatantly, you know, what is content about what someone is doing versus, like, non-verbal behavior, right?

In the, in the same way I think it can be muddled if somebody’s telling a story that doesn’t make sense, some law enforcement people might be like, “Oh yeah, he had a kind of a shifty quality as he was saying that,” but it’s like most of the, m- most of the usable information is what he’s actually saying, right?

Like- Yeah, yeah … I, I just think there’s, like, this muddled idea of what’s behaviorally useful, right? A quick note here. Again, I think these things are hard to talk about as they are so complex. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using a vibe or a read about someone being anxious or uncomfortable in order to follow it up with a few more questions on a topic.

In fact, that’s the main practical use of vague behavioral reads and vibes in real-world contexts that I see, just asking more questions. And I don’t see any real risk of using behavioral information of any sort in that way. But using behavioral information in that way occasionally is a far cry from what behavior experts claim you can do, and it’s a far cry from the immense power and mystique they ascribe to it.

In fact, that pretty banal use of it, to just ask a few more questions if we think someone is [01:18:00] uncomfortable or agitated, is already a skill that many of us have and often use. It’s a far cry from the amazing powers of deception detection that behavior experts claim they will be able to teach you. Back to the talk.

Kent Clizbe: Well, well, the only way to prove it is to, is like spot or it’s like my placements.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: I say, “I am going to give you someone who is ready, willing, and able to do your job,” and then I give them someone, and let’s look at the results Ekman said, “I’m gonna use microexpressions to identify terrorists.” Okay, I’m gonna train people to do that.

Do it, and let’s see the results. Right. My results were 100% exactly what I predicted. Ekman’s results were 100% wrong. Let’s see an FBI profiler, the f- the, the, the, uh, Washington sniper. There’s a case study. They s- they said, “Here’s the profile.” They were 100% wrong, and there are multiple. They hide them, and it’s hard to find them, but you, you have to follow cases as they’re happening.

Because once, you know, they, they put out the profile d- in the search for somebody, they’ll put out the profile. Once the person is found, that’s all forgotten. It’s all pushed aside, and they never talk about it again. They talk about how cool we were when we went in with the arrest team, and they show the video of, you know, 18 guys in, in vests taking somebody down.

But they, they forgot that profile. Uh, let, that, that’s what has to be done to… If, if you’re telling me that you can profile somebody or you can use behavior to predict something, tell me what your prediction is, let’s let it happen, and then we’ll compare those two.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I w- I would say even, yeah, e- e- even at an anecdotal level, often you won’t even find examples of, like, an anecdotal practical example.

Like, if it was actually useful, you’d see more people, behavior experts, giving an example, like, “How did I actually use this? Tell me the story of how you used it.” But the truth is you won’t really even find those. I mean, you’ll, you’ll find a lot of meandering things. Like, sort of like your example in the book talking about that case where Ekman gave his testimony about someone’s, uh, you know, t- about someone else’s, uh, you know, testimony, whether it was real or not or what his thoughts were.

It w- and it was just complete, completely meaningless. It was just like somebody blinked here, somebody blinked there, you know? But there was n- there was nothing… You reading his, reading his analysis, it was like, how would you ever make use of this? You, you couldn’t, you know?

Kent Clizbe: That’s the o- And, and that, that example is, a- after I did an exhaustive research, that example that’s in the book is the only- On record case of Ekman trying to apply his theory.

Right. Except for Spot. [01:21:00] Once he sold Spot, now we can really see how bad it was.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: But yeah, that case is the, is the only anecdotal evidence. And, and he tried to cover it up, you know? He, he never mentions that-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Kent Clizbe: but you dig and dig and dig, and you, you can find that in there.

Zach Elwood: Well, yeah.

Kent Clizbe: I just wanna say that my, I give plenty of anecdotes of how my system works, and it does work.

Zach Elwood: Right. I mean, and I would say, you know, n- not to minimize your system, but I mean, your system is about logical deductions. And so, like, you can back it up with an explanation of how you’re using it, right? Where- Yes … versus, like… And there’s a reason why you won’t see these guys go out on a limb, right? Like, y- y- the behavior experts, you won’t see them walk through their logic.

I think Ekman probably learned his lesson where he’s like, “I can’t make this as transparent. People are gonna realize I ha- I don’t really have much meaningful to say,” right? So he probably realized, like, “I shouldn’t, I h- you know, I shouldn’t do that.” And then the, which ties into him, like, trying to say later like, “I can’t talk about it, I can’t do research about it because it’s, like, top secret and people are using it so much.”

It’s

Kent Clizbe: classified now. That’s- Yeah … yeah, he tries to cover it up. Yeah. But you know what they do do? Guys like Ekman and the, the FBI behavioral analysis guys, they, they recruit, uh, Hollywood and TV, and the TV shows and movies do show them using the techniques and being successful.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: That’s where- PR

everybody, e- e- the, the idea that this works comes from media.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Both- Yeah … both, uh, news, uh, uh, a- and entertainment.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Television, uh, movies, uh, w- whatever. Where, where it’s, it’s fictionalized, but the Lie to Me, um-

Zach Elwood: Such

Kent Clizbe: bullshit … TV show, E- Ekman, when it was on, Ekman had a blog, and he would, like, live blog each, every, e- each episode, you know?

Well, the, the, he, his expression of, the micro expression of fear was, uh, you know, the, the hero saw that and he knew blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And in the show, they’re demonstrating, each, each episode demonstrates- how it works. Yeah. But that’s fake. Yeah. It’s fiction. Yeah. It’s not real. There is no anecdote or case study of microexpressions being useful- Yeah

in real life.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Well, and, and even organizationally, these organizations also have an incentive to promote this amazing, mysterious, you know, expertise they have because it makes, it makes… You know, it might help them get more confessions or it might help the people be intimidated by them, in the same way like the polygraph is usually used.

It’s mainly an intimidation factor. So I think there’s a, there is this incentive that’s like the more PR we put out there about our amazing secret knowledge about all these things, the more people might respect us and then the easier it makes our jobs, and so on and so on. So I think, I think there’s a tie-in there.

It’s like you have people that, who have ins- personal incentives to promote, promote these things. But then the, [01:24:00] I think there’s also, it helps explain why, you know, the, the organization has incentives to not… Like, why don’t you see the organization debunk some of the, these ideas more often? Or pe- even people within the organization don’t, don’t debunk it that often, you know?

Kent Clizbe: Oh, no. Yeah. No, absolute- un- it cannot be done. It was not gonna happen. That’s why, like, I, I, I make the point that intelligence operations are hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Uh, all that’s happening back there, you never see any of it. They, they can be, they can fail and nobody ever knows, except their buddies, and then they’ll all cover it up.

Law enforcement, they can, they can railroad somebody and call it a success. And, and say it was because of- The shoes I wore, or because of I saw him blink funny, or because, uh, whatever. They can make up anything they want, sell it to the media, sell it to entertainment, and it’s a self-licking ice cream cone.

Zach Elwood: If- do you feel, would you agree though it- it’s gotten a little bit better? Because I feel like with the spot thing being exposed and other things kind of be- becoming, other behavioral things becoming less popular, it feels like it’s, uh, uh, the, the law enforcement and, and military and such are in a better space when it comes to that thing over the years.

Do, do you feel that way?

Kent Clizbe: Eh, sort of. They’re still looking for the painless technical solution. They’re researching, they’re, uh, paying for… What big thing now is AI, uh, enabled video deception detection.

Zach Elwood: Oh, right.

Kent Clizbe: That’s totally based on microexpressions. You can use AI and video to do real time analysis of, you know, what flits across my face.

I call it face dancing, you know?

Zach Elwood: Yeah, like-

Kent Clizbe: Where- …

Zach Elwood: a, a, a microexpression of disgust briefly passed my face as I- Yeah, of disgust passed over his face … was talking to you, and I, and I must be d- They can- … I must be disgusted or judgmental of something you said, this kind of nonsense, you know?

Kent Clizbe: So who, but they can put all of that into an algorithm.

You know, they can, they can give the here’s what a, uh, disgust looks like, uh, and now analyze this person as he’s standing in line to be interviewed and, uh, match those and then give us a, an analysis of what that means. It can spit out, you know, “This dude’s a liar. This dude is, uh…” Well, whatever. You can make it say whatever you want.

But it’s garbage in, garbage out. The garbage in is Ekman.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: It’s all based on Ekman. And

Zach Elwood: that’s why you focus so much- Or,

Kent Clizbe: or Ekman-like …

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Huh? That’s why you focus so much on Ekman in your book. You see him as the, you know, he’s kind of like the grandfather of all these ideas of how they get spread out- Yes

to all these, yeah, yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Yes. Yes. He, he is, and, and that approach is. So I mean, I wish that there was, uh, there was a move away from it. I don’t think so.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Kent Clizbe: Yeah. There are always… The only way [01:27:00] that you can do credibility assessment is holistically With contextual expertise. Holistic contextual con, uh, credibility assessment.

They don’t wanna hear that because it’s hard. They, they want to hire a 24-year-old girl who has a MA in international affairs, who did a semester abro- abroad in Barcelona, and they wanna send her to Afghanistan and spot assess and recruit human sources of intelligence on Islamic extremism. They don’t, that girl doesn’t have the contextual expertise.

It’s hard to get the contextual expertise. They don’t want to do that. They

Zach Elwood: want to- There’s a structural pressure to seek easy answers because they want… Yeah, it’s hard to get the talent, so they want, they wanna check boxes at le- at, at the very least, they wanna check boxes that say, like, “Well, we tried to implement things that allow us to use these people and make them useful,” e- even if, even if they kinda know it’s not much.

Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Yeah, exactly. They take the person with no contextual expertise and they support her with whatever the latest technical or fashionable approach is, whether it’s microexpressions or NLP or, uh, some, some kind of physiological measurement. She meets somebody, recruits him, they bring him in and they do tests on him, physiological tests, and say, “He passed.

Now, okay, good to go.” Well, no. Uh-uh. That, it doesn’t work. You have to have, have contextual expertise and look at the whole, the whole person with understanding their context, and only then can you begin to judge whether they’re credible or not. And that, uh, the example I’m giving is, is for foreign intelligence.

Exact same thing in law enforcement, in immigration, in any other Context where you’re, you’re, uh, making a judgment of someone, vetting someone. I wish they were all calling me and saying, “Hey, man. Can you come train us in holistic contextual credibility assessment?” Ain’t happening.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Hmm.

Kent Clizbe: Nobody… They, there’s a lot of talk in the behavioral community about does this work, but there’s still a behavioral community.

They’re still talking about behavior.

Zach Elwood: I- Well, there’s this,

Kent Clizbe: there’s- I have yet to figure out what it’s good for …

Zach Elwood: there’s this field. Have you heard the term, what is it? Syner- synergiologist. Synergiologist. Have you heard of this? It’s- Wow.

Kent Clizbe: No.

Zach Elwood: One second. So I only learned this- What

Kent Clizbe: is that?

Zach Elwood: A note here. It’s actually pronounced synergology.

It’s a school of thought based on one specific guy’s teachings. I had talked to behavior researcher [01:30:00] Vincent DeNault for this podcast after I had this talk with Kent. Vincent is a former synergologist and has written criticisms of it. Back to the talk.

Kent Clizbe: Synergology, a discipline focused on decoding the human mind through

Zach Elwood: body language to improve commun- communication.

This is apparently a word used outside the US, I think in Canada and elsewhere, but there’s people that they’re basically body language experts, but they have… There’s this whole discipline around it. Uh, this was surprising to me. There, it’s like, because it, it’s almost like this is the u- word they’re using in some of the law enforcement aspects outside of the US.

I, I had never heard it. But anyway, just to say, yeah- So it’s- … this stuff is pretty rampant …

Kent Clizbe: they’re just putting a new term on it.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, it’s a new term. They’re putting new terminology on body language. It makes it sound, makes it sound scient- tific. It’s, yeah, S-Y-N-E-R-G-O-L-O-G-Y. Synergology.

Kent Clizbe: The button. There have been dozens of different flavors like that, and it’s Any physiolo- any attempt to, uh, interpret human actions and thinking, uh, by interpreting physiological signs doesn’t work, whatever they call it.

Um, did you say you, you talked to, uh, Vincent Denall?

Zach Elwood: I’m going to. I, uh, we, uh, we’re, we’re gonna have a talk in a few weeks.

Kent Clizbe: Great. I highly recommend. He was a believer in one of those.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: It may have been synergology.

Zach Elwood: That’s

Kent Clizbe: it, yeah. It is. He was in the cult, and his eyes got opened, and that led him to where he is today.

His focus is fantastic, is in, uh, trying to, to help judges and the justice system understand that you cannot judge people based on their behavior. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: So, and, and- That’ll be a good

Zach Elwood: talk …

Kent Clizbe: it, it’s a fascinating story that he was a true believer, and now he’s not.

Zach Elwood: I wanted to ask real quick about, have you had, have you ever read Mark McClish’s book, I Know You Are Lying, about verbal statement and written statement analysis?

No. I’d be c- I, I enjoyed that book. I, i- but again, it’s about, it’s about, it’s basically about, like, uh, analyzing patterns and statements, so I think it’s much more legitimate than body language because you’re actually talking about the content of what people are saying. I’ll send you a link and I, I’m actually b- I’d actually be curious what you think of it.

But again, it’s still in the realm of like, even if you get these hunches from these langua- from language, it’s like what exactly are you gonna do about it? You, you still need to have a reason to, uh, you know, about somebody’s story to, to base a major decision on. Like, little hunches about the language are not gonna help you much.

You know, they might help you, they might help you be more confident and like ask a few more questions in a practical sense, but even then it’s har- it can be hard even. But it i- but it is an interesting area, and I’ll, I’ll send you a link to it later. A quick note here. The concept of statement analysis I think gets a very bad rap from some people.

If you read the Wikipedia for the entry for statement analysis [01:33:00] You’ll read that it’s a pseudoscience, and I think this is a mistake largely based on the overreach and bad ethics of some people who do so-called statement analysis. Basically, I think the concept of statement analysis at a high level means just trying to analyze statements for meaning, which is what all of us are trying to do when we interpret any statements.

So to call the whole category of statement analysis a pseudoscience is to me clearly a mistake conceptually. But, uh, one bad system that had given the whole idea a bad name is known as SCAN, S-C-A-N. The creator of SCAN is, in my view, a highly unethical person who has hugely exaggerated what you can do with small language clues and claims that he can solve crimes and be highly confident in people’s guilt and innocence based on such things.

I think it’s clear that people’s small language choices can contain meaning. Some of those things have been studied and have legitimacy. Some have not been studied at all, but may or may not be legitimate. Some ideas have been debunked and disproven. But I think here too, this can get back to that fundamental question of when is imperfect information, information that has value but that we know will be far from one hundred percent reliable, when is that actually useful?

There can be some interesting things in the statement analysis space, and maybe even sometimes lead to asking a few more questions if such things pique our interest. But by and large, they will not have major power. Few people would argue that such things should be used as reasons to pursue an investigation or change the course of investigation, or as a reason to charge someone or as evidence Back to the talk

Kent Clizbe: Again, it’s holistic.

You have to look at everything.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: There’s no-

Zach Elwood: Quick fixes

Kent Clizbe: or quick- … generic-

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Magic bullet Uh, when someone re- writes the word, uh, onomatopoeia, that means they’re lying.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: Or if someone repeats the phrase, “I don’t know,” in writing, that means they’re lying. Yeah. There’s no magic bullets. You’re on bullshit.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, yeah. There’s no…

Kent Clizbe: Yeah. You’re, you’re e- what- whatever you call it, you’re gathering data from all sources, whether it’s from discussions, whether it’s from reading what they write, whether it’s from talking to them and, and getting a, a, a, uh, uh, a read of their aura if you will. But none of those, there’s no, uh, you know, here’s the four things that will sh- tell you somebody’s lying in his writing, in his speech, in his non-verbals.

There’s no such thing.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: You have to gather everything you can holistically, and you have to realize, you have to analyze yourself, am I competent in this context?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: You know? Okay, r- let’s talk about writing. Brain surgeon is writing a, a story about his [01:36:00] last surgery. I’m not competent. I… It doesn’t matter whether he tells me verbally or he writes it down.

Yeah. I don’t know.

Zach Elwood: You wouldn’t be

Kent Clizbe: able to tell his- No, there’s, I don’t-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Kent Clizbe: it doesn’t matter how he twitches when he says it, it doesn’t matter what his handwriting looks like. Oh, oh, that’s, that reminds me. Uh, when I joined the agency, the, the CIA in the ’90s, they were still using handwriting analysis.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: We, when… That was one of the CI tools, vetting. Get a written statement and send it to the graphologist It’s nonsense. It’s nonsense. You know, it’s, that’s as, as good as phrenology. You know, feel his head and see how, see what the bumps are like.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: I don’t know, maybe graphology and phrenology could be part of a holistic approach.

But I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t base my, uh, my decision just based on, uh, the graphologist reading.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: I don’t know if it jumped out at you in my book, because I, my I’m, I’m focused on reality. I’m not focused on theories and hypothesis and to tell me what you think might work. Let’s see what works in reality.

It’s kind of hard to do those case studies. So I created a protocol for evaluating deception detection approaches. Most research, quote unquote, that academics do with deception detection or any of these reading people’s body language or whatever, is they’re all academics. They have a psych- psychology 101 class of undergraduates.

They put up a, a, a notice, “Volunteers wanted for psychology experiment.” So you get 20 18 and 19-year-olds, uh, undergraduates to, to be the subjects of your experiment, and then what- that, that’s what you start with, and then you say, “Okay, this half you’re gonna lie about whether you did something. This other half, you don’t lie about your belief.”

You- they, they come up with all kinds of different scenarios. What bullshit. Totally useless. Doesn’t tell us anything. They write papers on it, and they, you know, they build theories around it. Totally useless. Real-life situation of actual somebody having to use assessment, credibility assessment in the real world, it ain’t 18-year-old psychology student pretending to lie It’s a hardened criminal, it’s a trained intelligence officer that you need to assess whether what they’re telling you is real or not.

Those people, hardened criminal, trained intelligence officer, a fraud, Wayne Simmons, [01:39:00] somebody applying, trying to get a job that I am filling for a client. They’ve cr- they created a fake background.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Real stakes.

Kent Clizbe: Those are real subjects.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Intelligence officers and criminals especially, but these other fraudulent people, they’re all trained.

They’ve practiced. They’ve thought about their lies. They’ve identified shortcomings in their lies. The intelligence officers, we call it a cover story. They create a cover story, and they practice it. They have documents to back it up. They live their cover as much as possible. How can… That’s the real world.

How can we create a situation that is a research protocol, but as close to the real world as possible?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: Right. We use actors. You, you get actors who… A- all of these, uh, uh, real fakers, intelligence officers, criminals, uh, fraudsters, and bad candidates, they’re all in effect acting, right? Uh, an intelligence officer’s cover is he’s playing a role And he’s practiced that role.

You get an actor in- for our research protocol, we get actors. We give them a cover story, and they practice it. We help them practice it, just like, uh, an intelligence training would do. We help them practice it. They become fluent in their lies. Now, give me a, a, a, a FBI profiler, give me an Ekman spot guy, give me a, a polygraph guy, give me a voice stress ana- analysis.

Uh, let’s, let’s have all of these lie detection, and then give me somebody like me who’s, who’s, uh, holistic contextual, and now we, we send them, each of these credibility assessors is in a, a, a isolated room, and we send the candidates to them. And we do a series of them.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Some are telling the truth.

Some are really a brain surgeon. Some are faking it.

Zach Elwood: That would be a

Kent Clizbe: great study. Nobody… I, I published that. I published that, uh, two or three years ago, and it’s repeated in my book.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Nobody does that. I mean- None of these researchers do it. They all keep using Psych 101 students.

Zach Elwood: A quick note here. For a very good book about understanding the mistakes and faults in deception detection research, I recommend Tim Levine’s book, Duped.

He discusses the aspect of stakes in such research, which is what Ken is talking about here, and he talks about other faults and bad thinking and bad [01:42:00] interpretations in the academic space. I’ve interviewed Tim several times for this podcast also Okay, back to the talk I mean, why you’d be, why it’s surprising that the government wouldn’t do some research like that, you

Kent Clizbe: know?

Yeah. No. No interest. No interest.

Zach Elwood: Uh, I was gonna pivot to, um, the, this whole gaining rapport thing is big with behavior experts. Um, and obviously, you know, in your work and in field work in general, like dealing with agents and operatives, you know, g- uh, gaining rapport is an important thing in the real world in, in many cases, in, in many situations.

But I think a lot of the, uh, you know, the alleged behavior experts, they spend a lot of time talking about, like, controlling your own body language in order, in, in ways to gain rapport, a- as ways to be more confident seeming, to be more likable, and so on and so on, which I think, you know, as an aside, I think it’s an understandable focus for them because as we’ve said, there’s often not much they, for them to actually talk about, about how they use behavior, like, use other people’s behavior, so it’s a natural pivot to be like, “Well, I’m gonna teach you how to control your behavior to influence other people.”

It’s a, it’s a nat- it goes together, which is why those things often, so often go together. It’s a big thing in the NLP, neuro-linguistic programming space, you know, because they’re all about behavior and manipulating and behavior and reading behavior. So, uh, I think there’s some basic points in there that can be valuable, you know, like, sort of like we were talking about, like, obvious points about other people’s behavior, too.

You know, it’s good to avoid standoffish body language p- with people. It’s good to avoid seeming, like, shifty-eyed. You know, you d- th- there’s these various, uh, things that, that are kind of basic for, like, s- not seeming, uh, suspicious to people and, and gaining rapport and b- being likable and seeming trustworthy.

But I think in that area, too, to me, it’s mostly bullshit because I think it’s much more important to, like- be a realistic person and be yourself and, you know, a- and, and to work on, like, what you’re actually saying than it is to, like, try to, like, manipulate people with your body language. Beca- because I think most people are pretty savvy and they, they can sense that they’re being…

If somebody’s doing these body language, stereotypical body language things, I think most people can sense that, like, or there’s a risk of them sensing that this person’s trying to manipulate me by trying to mirror my body language or, like, come across as super likable or something. There, there’s all these risks, and I think to me, I’m curious to get your take, but I think a lot of that stuff is just bullshit because I think it’s much more important to just, like, work on what your story is or what your approach is content-wise and just, just try to be yourself, whether that’s, you know.

A- and I think a lot of people are likable without these stereotypical likable aspects. There’s many people that might come across rather autistic that are very likable and, and, and [01:45:00] seem trustworthy. But I’m curious to get your take on all that, yeah.

Kent Clizbe: So I, af- after, uh, a lot of experience as a, uh, as, as a human intelligence officer, I came up with, with a credo.

When you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made. There are stereotypes of behaviors that people believe. I guess we, we, there’s a lot of descriptions if, of people who are onto those behaviors. Smarmy, slick, salesman-like. All of those are describing people who are attempting to be trustworthy and likable.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: The thing is, though, it works because people believe in the stereotypes. Adjusting, uh, your behavior when you want to be liked or believed can work-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Kent Clizbe: because people believe the stereotypes.

Zach Elwood: Would you say, would you say that’s a, an area where like the behavior, these behavior experts who are getting into that space about like using body language to manipulate or affect other people, would you say that’s a more credible use of, of their expertise than actually reading people?

Kent Clizbe: Yeah, it’s more credible, but it’s hilariously disproves their, their entire, uh, their, their entire belief system.

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah.

Kent Clizbe: If- I see what you’re saying … i- their, their belief system is behavior tells you what people, uh, are thinking or feeling. But here, fake it and then you’ll be okay. Well, well, wait. If it can be faked- I-

then what are you talking about? I never

Zach Elwood: even thought… You know, it’s funny, I never even really thought about that, but that, that-

Kent Clizbe: It’s again, cognitive dissonance. It’s, it’s Joe Navarro babbling for six minutes about 80% of communication being non-verbal. We, we believe that you can read body language. But here, fake it and you’ll, uh, and, and nobody will know what, know what you’re doing.

Well, a- a-

Zach Elwood: and I do agree, I agree with you. I might have come off too negative. I d- I do think there is value to… Because, because so many other… It does work on people. So many people believe these things- Yes … you know? A- a- and so I do think there is value in it. But I also, when reading some of this stuff, like, you know, to give an example Vanessa Van Edwards, I think is her name, or other people that…

There’s Mark Bowden from the Behavior Panel. They talk a lot about how to manipulate the things that you do, the behaviors. To me, a lot of it’s just, like, common sense stuff. Like, you know, it, it, it’s making a mountain out of a molehill, which is, like, there’s a, a molehill of, like, some useful basic information that you can do to come across as, [01:48:00] you know, trustworthy and open and genuine.

There’s a few basic things that you might- Yeah … learn about, and you’d be like, “Oh, that makes sense,” you know, that people would-

Kent Clizbe: Yes …

Zach Elwood: have that impression of those things. But then it’s like, once, once you start reading a lot of it, you’re like, you’re just saying the same stuff over and over. There’s not really that much to learn there.

I mean, that’s at least my, been my reaction to it all.

Kent Clizbe: I, I completely agree. There, there, a- again, there’s no list of, “Here are the four things you can fake that will make you believable or likable.” Building rapport is extremely important-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Kent Clizbe: in many, many things. Right. Intelligence operations, uh, law enforcement, your everyday life, sales.

Even personal

Zach Elwood: li- even personal friendships. Either people

Kent Clizbe: you meet, you know? Yeah, everyday life. Yeah. That’s what it’s about. Yeah. It’s rapport. Yeah. It, and there, there are, like, a, um, a list of things that you can do that will help you to build rapport with people. Listening. W- don’t… W- whatever. You know, there’s, there’s, there’s several-

Zach Elwood: Making, making, making enough eye contact, not too much, not too little.

You know, these kinds of- Yeah … things that some people… You know, I’ll, I’ll admit, I had a, you know, a, I think I have a bit of an autism thing, so it’s, it was hard for me to learn some of those things growing up, where I was like, how much is too much eye contact? How much is not enough,

Kent Clizbe: right? Exactly.

Zach Elwood: So I think there, there are these-

Kent Clizbe: I was the same way.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: And, and, and, you know, once, once you learn those things, though, there, there are body language or, or, you know, physiological ways, the, of carrying yourself that make people trust you or feel comfortable around you But that doesn’t mean that you’re trustworthy. Right. And it doesn’t mean that you don’t have bad intentions.

Right. So again, it’s cognitive dissonance.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: It’s, you’re, you’ve ch- taught people to read body language, and yet pe- you’ve taught people to, uh, fake body language or, or, uh, uh, a way of acting that hides their true intent.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: I mean, do, which is it?

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Kent Clizbe: Can… Is, does body language mean something, or can you fake it and it means anything?

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I mean, getting, getting back to the idea that content and analysis of content is the most important thing. It’s like, I mean, you got somebody like Chase Hughes, he comes across as very confident, very smooth, and it’s like, but if you listen to the things he’s saying, you can quickly put together that this guy is full of shit, right?

Like, so, you know, a- and you could be the, and you could be the most autistic person who comes across as very untrustworthy or, you know, shifty or whatever, and, and, but, but if people listen to what you’re saying, they’re like, “Well, this guy is credible,” right? Like, he… You know, so it go, j- just to say, yeah, there are true things there that, that matter in behavior that af- that affect other people, but it’s also true that-

Kent Clizbe: Because people- Yeah

go by the stereotypes.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, yeah. Like crossing arms is a, is a common stereotype. It’s like, people cross their arms for many reasons. It doesn’t mean you’re standoffish or not being [01:51:00] friendly, but many people will interpret it as being unfriendly. So, you know, you should probably avoid doing it, this kind of thing.

Kent Clizbe: So, so the, the perfect case study for that is con men and salesmen. Con men and salesmen are all trained to be non-confrontational, to be, uh, friendly, to be building rapport, but they do not have your be- they’re, they’re hiding their true intent. They’re hiding the, the actual feelings, thoughts, and ideas.

Their body language is not telling you, or their, just their demeanor is not telling you the truth. They’re, they’re faking it.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Kent Clizbe: Which is why my, my, uh, protocol for testing deception detection uses actors. Actors fake it. That’s what they’re… That’s their job. They’re faking it. Same with con men, criminals, and intelligence officers.

They’re faking it. If it can be faked, you know, like for example, Ekman, his entire shtick is built on, it’s un- the, that microexpressions are unconscious, they’re uncontrollable, they’re universal And that is in effect what all body language people are saying, even though they don’t, they don’t wanna say it explicitly.

But implicitly, they’re saying that every … That I can read your physiological symptom, your physiological approach. Whatever, whatever your body is telling me, I can read it. And if it can be cloaked and faked, what’s the point?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Kent Clizbe: You gotta look at it holistically.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Uh, this has been great. Kent, do you wanna mention anything else before we go?

Or, uh, I was gonna wrap up, but …

Kent Clizbe: I don’t think so. I don’t think so. Just, uh, thanks a lot. Appreciate spending the time, and g- it was a great, great conversation. You’re, you’re doing a great thing. Let’s, let’s do something on, uh, with Hughes.

Zach Elwood: That was a talk with Kent Clisby, a former CIA officer and the author of the book Holistic Contextual Credibility Assessment.

By the way, if you wanna see that episode that Kent mentioned just now where he and I talk about Chase Hughes and Chase’s military record and career, you can check that out. That came out earlier in 2026. It might be interesting for seeing Kent use his credibility assessment methods in a real world context, examining the lies of Chase Hughes, an alleged behavior expert.

The ease with which Chase Hughes has spread his lies and nonsensical ideas about behavior reading and mind control and other things via social media and via popular podcasts like Joe Rogan and Diary of a CEO is good insight into the corruption of the whole behavior expert space in general. There’s a reason con men like Chase Hughes are drawn to this space.

It’s a space with obviously huge [01:54:00] demand that also seems to reward lies and exaggerations and outlandish claims. Okay, thanks for your interest, and stay skeptical out there.

Categories
podcast

Psy-Op soldier talks methods of influence, blowback, psy-op myths, Chase Hughes, and more

I talk with an Army Psychological Operations soldier about what military psy-op work really involves—and how different the reality is from many people’s ideas about the nature of that work. We discuss his psy-op work in Afghanistan, why credibility and truth are usually much more persuasive and effective than deception, and fascinating historical operations involving surrender appeals, staged intelligence, and Vietnam’s eerie “ghost tapes.” We also explore the legal and ethical limits on influencing Americans, how social media has blurred those boundaries, how foreign influence campaigns exploit political polarization, and why “PSYOP” has become an all-purpose label for conspiracy theories. Finally, we examine the red flags that can help you identify self-proclaimed-but-deceptive military-persuasion experts (like Chase Hughes) who fabricate and exaggerate their credentials and experience to sell their psychology- and behavior-focused training and products.

Links to related resources and a transcript are below.

Episode links:

Resources mentioned in or related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts are generated automatically and will contain errors)

Psy-op soldier clip: “You go to PSYOP training, it’s not gonna make you a mind reader. It’s not gonna make you a human lie detector. It’s not gonna make you an interrogator or a universal expert in human behavior… it’s not mind control. It’s not a secret superpower. Most real influence work is less cinematic than people… want to imagine. It’s about credibility, audience context, timing, and whether the message matches reality… The problem is that when serious people do not explain the field, the vacuum gets filled with conspiracy theorists, entertainers, and people selling secret military persuasion systems… And that hurts the public understanding.”

That was a clip from my talk with an Army PSYOP veteran named Pat. If you don’t already know, psy-op stands for psychological operations. To quote from the Army website, psy-op soldiers quote “use expert communication skills and unconventional tactics to support U.S. Army objectives.” unquote. Such work generally involves the strategic use of information, propaganda, or media to sway an enemy’s, adversary’s, or public’s state of mind. 

In this episode, Pat will talk about what psy-op involves, stories from his psy-op work that he’s done in Afghanistan and other countries, and about some of the controversies and concerns around psy-op work. If you’re interested in how the military uses psychological tactics, including persuasion and including fear, to achieve their goals, you’ll find this an interesting talk. We also talk about some of the persistent myths and misunderstandings about what psy-op soldiers do, and how that relates to paranoid ideas and conspiracy theories. We talk about what Russia’s goals really might have been in creating political content in the lead-up to the 2016 election. We also talk about the origins of the word propaganda, and how it went from having a neutral association to a negative association. And we talk about why you don’t see Uncle Sam posters and similar posters any more, and how that ban stemmed from a ban on psychological operations targeting American citizens. 

A little bit more background on Pat: he’s a retired U.S. Army non-commissioned officer and Psychological Operations veteran who served in tactical PSYOP units, including during Village Stability Operations in Afghanistan. After military retirement, he worked in maritime archaeology and remained active in PSYOP historical research and regimental affairs. He is also an officer in the Psychological Operations Regimental Association. Pat appears here on my podcast solely in his personal capacity and does not speak in any official capacity for any military or government department or agency. 

Due to the nature of Pat’s work, we’re just using his first name here, so as to limit his exposure a bit.  

As you might know if you’ve listened to the People Who Read People podcast before, you know that I’ve done some work exposing a con artist named Chase Hughes, and it was because of Chase Hughes that Pat initially reached out to me. 

Some of Chase’s many lies include claims that he’s worked in various official, high-level capacities for the military on things like interrogation training and behavior analysis and psychological operations of various sorts, when his record shows that he was actually a Navy quartermaster, working on ship and equipment maintenance and logistics and such. Despite the egregiously obvious nature of Chase’s lies and exaggerated claims, he has appeared on some very popular shows, including appearing twice each on Diary of a CEO and Joe Rogan. These appearances on the shows of gullible, irresponsible show hosts have helped him gain millions of youtube followers, and who knows how many customers paying him money under false pretenses.  

Chase has on multiple occasions claimed or implied that he’s been involved with military psy-op work. He uses this false authority to spread a lot of bad and illogical ideas on many topics. In many of his own videos and in many interviews, he spreads paranoia that many things around us might be psy-ops of various sorts; that hardly anything is real, that everything is manufactured. 

clip from Shawn Ryan Show. 

Shawn: “Charlie Kirk was just assassinated. Is that a psy-op? Is the Epstein shit a psy-op? Ukraine? China?”

Chase Hughes: “All psy-op”

Shawn: “everything”

One important point here is that Chase is using “psy-op” as a general catchall term; some shadowy group, somewhere, is creating a huge variety of false fronts and deceptive news items. He’s using it in a general conspiratorial way, not to refer to Army psy-op work. And that’s how a lot of people use the term psy-op these days; it’s just part of expressing a general paranoia about various unknown, shadowy forces controlling us. And toxic political polarization has really amplified such paranoia, across the board, across many political ideologies. And as I’ve written about in my work on political polarization, which you can learn about at american-anger.com; this goes both ways; political pessimism and contempt lead to more paranoia, and paranoia leads to more pessimism. Many people these days are pessimistic and paranoid, and this also helps Chase find an audience of fans; they see his paranoid views as legitimate, and become more likely to trust him.  

Chase uses his false claims about having done Army psy-op work to bolster both his perceived authority and his conspiratorial claims. If one believes that he has seen the inner workings of what the military has done, and even helps train such operations, his false claims about all the deception around us become more believable. You’ll be more likely to pay for his psychology-related work, and maybe even for his increasingly culty guru-like teachings. 

[clip from Chase Hughes’ youtube video: “I’m the guy who trains psy-ops and stuff to companies and stuff.”]

On his second appearance on Joe Rogan, in June of 2026, Chase said that he was going to Fort Bragg to train psy-op soldiers. 

“In two days I’m going to Fort Bragg to train the US Army psy-ops division.”

Chase usually sticks to ambiguous language, the hallmark of frauds and con artists, so this was a fairly rare concrete and directly disprovable statement from him. But I think pathological liars like Chase really can’t help themselves; I think people like Chase, at some level, want to be caught and called out, which helps explain this kind of playing with self-destructive fire that is so common. 

While I’m certain this statement is a lie, and obviously willing to go on record publicly saying that, obviously such things are hard to directly prove using official statements and records. I’ve put in a freedom of information request to the Army to get an official statement on this specific question, but I’ve been told getting an official statement is hard as it requires a good amount of research; for example, even if they know quickly he didn’t work with the psy-op division, they would want to check there wasn’t some one-off interaction or gig. When I submitted my request for Chase’s Navy record, that took six months and was I think a much simpler request, as that just involved pulling up a single record.

But anyway, Chase’s appearance on Rogan is what led to Pat reaching out to me. The psy-op world is a small one, you see, and false claims are quickly noticed. False claims bother people who do the actual work, for a multitude of reasons; for one thing, being associated with a bunch of lies and conspiratorial ideas makes them look bad. This is actually the third time an actual psy-op soldier has reached out to me about Chase’s false psy-op claims. 

Pat and I talk about Chase toward the end of this talk, but I’ll include a summary of this that Pat sent me in an email: “No one I asked in the PSYOP professional and regimental circles I know recognized Hughes as a PSYOP professional or trainer. That is community knowledge, not an official Army records determination. A one-off private contact is theoretically possible, but that is materially different from officially training Army PSYOP or implying institutional endorsement.” End quote. Toward the end of the talk Pat talks about red flags for spotting people who are only pretending to have secret knowledge and elite credentials. 

If you like this episode, you might also enjoy a previous episode where I talk to historian Stephen Kinzer about the government mind control program MK Ultra; we talk about what’s fact versus fiction and the many misunderstandings and myths about that program.

One cool thing I learned from talking to Pat was that my podcast had been recommended by an Army psy-op trainer to people taking his course. I might be talking to that psy-op trainer for the podcast in the future. When I asked that person about that, he told me that my podcast was included in what’s called a “commander’s reading list,” which is a list of resources the commander believes quote “would be great for their subordinates and their professional development.” end quote. 

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast and things I’ve delved into, and if you want to encourage me to do it more often, please consider subscribing to it on youtube or your preferred podcast platform, consider leaving a rating and review on Apple Podcasts platform, and consider sending me a donation at buymeacoffee.com; my page there is at buymeacoffee.com/zachelwood. All those things are greatly appreciated!

Okay here’s the talk with Pat. 

Hi, Pat. Thanks for joining me.

Pat: Hey, how you doing, brother?

Zach Elwood: Doing great. Yeah, thanks so much for, for taking the time for this.

Uh, I thought maybe we could start with… It’s probably hard to define it all ’cause, because I know PSYOP work involves so many different, um, aspects and, uh, over, especially over time. But do you have a, a… Like, what’s your favorite way to explain what the, the, the work involves?

Pat: If we’re speaking very broadly about PSYOP, the US Army PSYOP is about influencing, uh, foreign audiences in support of military objectives.

So, uh, e- essentially, we work for, or I worked for the commander to either, you know, get the behavior of the civilians in the area he’s gonna operate in, uh, adhere to what he wants, or the enemy. In World War II days, it even included allies. Uh, and you say, “Well, what do you mean by that?” Well, for civilians, we would typically…

I’d tell the boss, “Hey, I can move these guys off the battlefield. W- uh, what is your objective? Where are you going to go, and how do I move these civilians off the battlefield?” For example, if we said, “We’re gonna drop, uh, bombs on this target at this exact time,” we would drop leaflets on the civilian population say, “Hey, get the heck out of there.

This is what’s gonna happen at this exact time, and you need to move to save yourselves.” That would be an example of the civilian side. Enemy would be, like, a surrender appeal. Um, you would drop leaflets or you use television or radio to tell them y- you, for whatever reason, “Hey, here is the truth of, uh, your situation, and you can, you can surrender and save your life.”

So I guess, like, in practice, what is PSYOP? It means understanding the audience, you know, identifying that behavior you want to affect, and then developing the messages or actions that might influence that behavior. And then, as I said, you’re coordinating with the commander or your, your ally partners, and then you go back and you assess whether or not anything has changed.

And within, within those parameters, that’s, that’s everything under the sun that you, you, you have access to, to make that happen.

Zach Elwood: You had sent me that website, Ed Rouse’s website, PsyWarrior. Yeah. And it, I think the way he put it was something like the, the usual military work is like, you know, direct engagement-

Pat: Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm …

Zach Elwood: to achieve means, you know, actual combat. But the, the, the, the PSYOP element is, like, the indirect, uh-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: softer skill kind of things to accomplish those, uh, missions. Is that, is that another way to, to, to look at it?

Pat: Yeah. That, that’d be a good way to put it, and that, that is an excellent, excellent resource.

Uh, that, that was Ed Rouse and, um, Sergeant Major Herb Friedman.

Zach Elwood: A quick note here, that website that we’re discussing is at psywarrior.com. That’s P-S-Y warrior.com.

Pat: Excellent, excellent, excellent resource, and it… I think that really does paint a picture on What PSYOP really does, not so much what we’re rumored to do.

Zach Elwood: Would you like to talk about how you understand the PSYOP work to have maybe changed over time? Uh, and has it changed over time, or is it largely the same as when it wa- the department was created? How, how do you see that? Uh,

Pat: well, yeah, no, that’s a good question. Um, I, I’ll say the fundamentals of PSYOP have never changed.

Um, I… The guys like, uh, Dr. Paul Linebarger, they literally wrote the book on psychological operations or psychological warfare, uh, during and right after World War II. So the, the philosophy and the approach a- and the, uh, the underlying academics haven’t changed. The technology for reaching the audience has changed, though.

I guess social media would probably be… I’d say that would be the primary way it- it’s really changed.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, digital internet stuff.

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pat: Yeah, and that gets into, like, the tricky legalese of it. If your listeners, uh, aren’t familiar with it, uh, check out the Smith-Mundt Act. That says that a psychological operations soldier of the US Department of Defense cannot legally PSYOP an American citizen

Zach Elwood: Right

Pat: That, that is by law.

Um, so if you, if you caught a PSYOP soldier, you know, operationally within the confines of your unit doing something to an American citizen, that’s a big no-no, like criminal investigation level stuff. But, uh, what, what happened was with this social media getting more complex, they had to look at the laws because now, um- Yeah,

Zach Elwood: anything can be viewed-

Pat: Right

by

Zach Elwood: anybody.

Pat: And suppose, uh, you know, and I’ll use made-up, uh, country names. I’m sure folks could probably, you know, figure things out. But if you had a country like for, I, I don’t know, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll pick Sprocket Land for, for the heck of it. And you, you’re, you’re there, uh, uh, wherever you’re at, whether you’re in Utah or Maryland or, or Florida, and you pick it up.

They go, “Oh man, I’m getting PSYOP product.” I mean, well, we didn’t specifically ta- you weren’t the, the, the target audience for that.

Zach Elwood: You were, you were like a collateral, uh, psychological, uh, damage or something.

Pat: Yeah. And that, that’s the case where, uh, s- uh, technology has made them have to go back and review how they do these things.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pat: And I’m not, and, and b- being that I’m out, I’m, so I’m retired these days, so I’m not as up on how the law has changed or not changed since.

Zach Elwood: Right. That sounds, yeah, that, that, that sounds complicated. Yeah, ’cause it’s like, what, what does it mean to target something? And if someone consumes it, are they theoretically considered to be targeted?

Or what, you know- Yeah … that’s a, that’s a tough, I could see-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: that’s a tough legal,

Pat: uh- And that’s, yeah. And that, that’s, and that’s of course why PSYOPers, you know, the, uh, in the, back when I was in that, you would have to confer with ja- So that is part of the process. Like you would make a product and you would have to go confer with the judge advocate to make sure that you, you and the c- everybody was legal eagle.

You, you definitely have to turn your brain power on when you do this, this kind, this line of work.

Zach Elwood: Do you wanna talk about the specific kinds of things that you did, uh, wh- when you were, uh, serving? Some specifics?

Pat: Sure. So I did, I did some, uh, some tours in Afghanistan. Uh, I did what was called the, uh, VSO program, uh, also VSP, uh, which was, uh, Village Stability Operations or Village Stability Platform.

It was a resurrection of something they had done in Vietnam that was actually very successful. The, the idea was that you would push the bad guy out of an area, and then you would bring in a special forces team, uh, known as an ODA, um, or, and a PSYOPS team and a civil affairs team, and they would work together within, uh, the village, uh, to improve the infrastructure and that sort of thing.

And when the next fighting season roll around, the enemy doesn’t have safe harbor and the people are able to step, ste- uh, step up for themselves, so to speak, a- and keep the enemy from destabilizing it. In, in that, uh, context, uh, you know, I would go out and get a feel for the population and what their grievances were, how they perceived American forces, how they perceived the national Afghan forces, how they perceived, uh, the Taliban, and then I would go back and work on plans.

Okay, how do we improve the, uh, US’s image in this area? What are things that we can affect and fix? And I would advise the ODA commander, “Hey, sir, you know, one thing is, uh, uh, they’re limited in information access.” Uh, so we had access to something called a tactical radio station And, uh, I, I think that’s what they were called.

I… It, my memory slips a little bit. It’s been, I guess, a decade plus since I’ve, I did that. But, uh, a tactical radio station is a, it, a two-man carry. You set it up, and essentially we take folks that, um, had no electricity, uh, no television, no radios, and we bring radio information to them. In that respect, we would, uh, we would give out, uh, pro-government messages.

We would, uh, we had a radio literacy program. We would give, uh, a program on farming to improve farming techniques, uh, sanitation stuff, and it would all be done in their language. So kind of think of me as a radio disc jockey out, out in the middle of nowhere. I, I was really proud of the, uh, radio literacy program.

Uh, so what, uh, we would do is we’d go out to the different villages where the radio covered. We would hand out these, uh, books made in our higher headquarters, and I, I think it was if the, the kids opened a book up and they tune in every night at, like, 6:00 or 7:00, whenever they finished dinner, they tune in, they, they follow along with the book, and if they s- were consistent for about a month, they would have a third-grade reading level.

Zach Elwood: Oh, wow. Hmm.

Pat: For your audience, uh, that the, the literacy rate, I think… Gosh, I used to know it, but it, it was in the 90 per- 90% of the country was illiterate.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pat: Couldn’t read their own language, couldn’t read, well, any language. Uh, the only ones that really knew or had a higher literacy rating would’ve been the folks up in Kabul or the religious leaders-

Zach Elwood: Oh, right

Pat: uh, typically were, were, uh, literate.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pat: Uh, so we would do things like that. And the Afghan people, they, they really seemed to like it. I was probably one of the safest guys on the team ’cause they knew if I got hurt, that was the end of the radio as far as they knew.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. That, that was kind of like a modern, uh, version of l- of the old, uh, older PSYOP operations, uh, in, in like World War II and Vietnam, where they would drop leaflets, um- Yeah

on, on, on people to, you know, get the message across of whatever sort. Now, now you’re using radio, you’re using other things.

Pat: Exactly. Yeah. Uh, you would use cell phone, you’d push out messaging and all that sort of thing. And it’s clever, too, with the radio literacy program, um, if you wanted to drop leaflets on them, then they could read them, you know, after you made them literate.

But, uh, they did use leaflet drops as well. I don’t know the effectiveness of the leaflet drops. I wasn’t involved in that portion of the war. But, uh, the, the VSO program was, in my opinion, very, very effective. It didn’t last very long. I think it was four years. Uh, there was some issues with it. It w- it is very hard on the American troops because you’re living out among the villagers and you’re essentially living in the same conditions as rural Afghans.

Um, so again, um, uh, mud brick houses, uh, exposure to the elements, that sort of thing, limited connectivity, especially in those days. But it was effective because we really did empower the, the Afghans. Uh, and that was a, that was a fun thing too, as a cyber you had to navigate the local politics because you had tribal issues.

And, uh, one of the things I had to do was, uh, recruit for the Afghan local police, which was a, I think it was a hamlet police force. The idea was you would give them police training. Uh, they essentially would be the defense perimeter or your defense perimeter against the bad guys, uh, when the bad guys would come back after the, after the, uh, the winter season.

So the summer season was the fighting season, uh, just because of the snow and all that things. They, they don’t travel much during the winter. From there, they would, uh, uh, be able to fight against the bad guys. But, uh, like I said, you had to navigate the tribal issues because some tribes would be supportive of the Afghan local police and then say, “Hey, that guy’s Taliban.”

And he wasn’t Taliban, he was from the other tribe, and he wants you to arrest him for them.

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah, a lot of, lot of complex, uh, interactions and politics. Yeah.

Pat: Yeah. Uh, there was a private police force run by someone named Matulla Khan, which if there’s any listeners that are retired Green Berets, they know who that guy is.

And, uh, anytime he didn’t get paid, he’d pull his police force out of the area. So if we had this level of security, it went to this, and we couldn’t go outside of our own fortified space. Uh, and then that was an issue too. But I, I’d say the tribal stuff was the most interesting ’cause you would have complex issues going back centuries and centuries and centuries.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Are there other, um, major types of operations that you worked on that you wanna mention?

Pat: Uh, one of the cooler things I, I would say I got to do was I got to do a, uh, a joint training exercise with, uh, the Thai Army. Got to go through an abbreviated Thai survival school where I had to eat a cobra and drink cobra’s blood.

And, and if guys have ever done that, you know, they, they, they’ve been through it too, I’m sure. Um, it’s kind of a thing that they do for American troops when we go out there. But it was an exchange and we would train them in, in tactics in PSYOP. But the, the really cool thing to me was, uh, with the Thai PSYOP forces was seeing that, uh, they were doing things that we used to do in the 1960s and ’70s in Vietnam that we stopped doing long ago.

Um, and I think that’s a shame. Like, they would put on full stage productions. Uh, so their PSYOPers actually had to, uh, uh, be trained actors in some cases. Uh, but that, that’s the, the, the two, the two that I, I really, uh, I, I can think of that were exciting, at least in my career, was the VSO missions and doing the Thailand, uh, joint, uh, training.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Yeah, I was, uh, you know, reading about PSYOP-related things l- last few days and, uh, for a lot of people, I think, I think there was a lot of what they think of when they think of PSYOP is More underhanded and, and devious things. A- and those things can obviously exist too, but-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: it seems like there’s a lot of, like, completely non-controversial things that the, uh, the psyop, uh, people do.

You know, for example, I was reading about basically explaining to a, an enemy force, like, “Hey, you’re, you’re gonna be destroyed,” and, and, and being very b- very truthful in that regard. Being like, “Hey, you’re surrounded, you’re vastly outnumbered.” Mm-hmm. Like, “Don’t start a conflict.” And also aspects of, like, in World War II, probably other places, dropping leaflets that explain to soldiers, like, “Look, you can give up and you’ll be treated very well.”

And th- these are, you know, these are real things that you’re explaining to help reduce the conflict, the, the, uh, toxicity or the violence of the-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: of the conflict. So just to say some of these things, and obviously there’s, there can be deceptive aspects of that too, but, like, trying to persuade instead of fight is a, to me a, can be a, uh, a very non-controversial aspect of the, of the psyop work.

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah,

Pat: that’s, that’s the thing with psyop is it’s, it’s, you know, I see all over online, “Be careful, it’s a psyop.” And I used to joke with my soldiers, “You know, they never say online, ‘Be careful, it’s a special forces.’ They always say, ‘Be careful, it’s a psyop.'” So it tells you who the, who’s really the, the scary ones of the force, right?

Um, but for psyop, it’s a very, like, most of the job is really, really mundane. There’s, like, cool stuff you occasionally get to do, but it’s, it’s girded into truth. Um, if you lie to the enemy, you can’t persuade them- Hmm … because, like, they, they, they’re gonna be able to prove that you lied eventually.

Zach Elwood: Right, it’s like interrogation.

So- It’s like, uh- Yeah … criminal interviews and interrogations. It’s like there’s, there can be r- a real counter, uh, a negative impact, um, blowback from, from lying to people and having them know that you lied- Right … and such, right?

Pat: It’s, it’s eventually gonna come out in the wash. And especially, you know, imagine if we dropped a leaflet, uh, before D-Day on the Germans that said, “Hey, we’re gonna beat you.

Uh, we’re gonna win. Surrender now. Go to the, I don’t know, go to the border of whatever the heck, Switzerland or something, and give yourself up.” I know they were neutral, but, uh, they wouldn’t do it because it’s not true. At that point before D-Day, it’s not true that the Germans are about to be defeated.

But once we take that beachhead, one of the cool things they did was, uh, they would, uh, I cannot remember the name of the newspaper at the moment. Uh, they would put it on equivalent of, uh, a printer sheet, uh, uh, your, your standard, uh, legal letterhead. Uh, they’d print out a newspaper, and it was a front and back, and it would give the Germans the news of the day, and it was accurate, it was truthful, and, uh, it would say, “Hey, we’re, you know, on this hill, and we just had this battle, and we defeated Rommel here, here, and here.”

And then the airplanes would drop a, uh, a surrender pass next. So they’d read the newspaper, then they would get a surrender pass that would say, um, “This is, this is a legal binding document. Give this to the first American soldiers you see.” A lot of work went into that. So the guys that did that leaflet that this, uh, both the newspaper and the, the, the surrender, uh, pass, if you will, and I, I, I forget the correct terminology at the moment for the surrender pass.

Th- they had to steeply study, uh, the German soldier psyche to figure out that that would work.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pat: That’s the other thing about the cyber, you’re not just spitballing. They, they… And you can look at this historically. We deep dive on the, on that target audience, uh, to figure out how they perceive the world, what, what draws them in, what What do they deem most credible?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Pat: And of course, they heard our airplanes gone, and we had the paratroopers seizing territory. And you might say, “Well, how, how did we figure out that leaflet to design it?” And you would have a bunch of cultural experts, would be one of them. Uh, the other one would be, um, if you had guys that were captured in Italy or North Africa, for example, uh, German soldiers there, you would have PSYOP interrogators.

And, and what I mean by that is they were, uh, they were interrogators in- assigned to the PSYOP forces, and their specialty was figuring out the, uh, the morale level of that German soldier. And then they would bring out, uh, prototypes of, uh, leaflets they were working on. Let’s, let’s say the surrender leaflet or the newspaper, and they’d show it to them and go, “What do you think of this?

Does this make sense to you?” Uh- Yeah … “Do you think this would guys-” Is this persuasive?

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pat: Yeah. Th- th- that’s the weird thing about, uh, a PSYOP too, is, is when in my old days, when, when I would, uh, you know, teach people this as a historian and that sort of thing, uh, PSYOP is a strange branch because it’s, it’s dealing with the preservation of life.

And what I mean by that is a, a PSYOPper is duty bound to preserve the life of his comrades, the life of the civilians, and paradoxically, the life of the enemy. Because if the enemy surrenders because of your PSYOP leaflets, what just happened? Like, we, we had a guy, uh, he was a, he was a, uh, commander in, uh, w- uh, was a captain in World War II, and, uh, he was the one, along with a, uh, OSS, uh, operative, that figured out how to wire loudspeakers to tanks.

Uh, when he first tested it out, he surr- he, they were attacking a city, and, uh, he was able to get 5,000 German soldiers to surrender with just one loudspeaker up here on the tank. Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Pat: So, uh, imagine that you just saved 5,000 lives, and you extrapolate that, and the families recall, “Oh, the Americans aren’t so bad.

They don’t rape and pillage, uh, like the Soviets did.” Y- you know, I’m, I’m sure you’re devil, “Oh, what about this one time, Pat?” Well, that’s a minority amount.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I mean, your, your point is assuming that- A military force, a government is, is acting, is true to their word for the most part. Mm-hmm. Right? It’s like you can, you can trust them to say, to, to not be overly deceptive and, and, a- and, uh, immoral in their actions.

It’s like y- you… The, the, the goal is to avoid military, uh, encounters and violence. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And in that regard, assuming they’re mostly doing it in above the board ways, that, that’s a non-controversial area of the… Even if we can talk about other areas that people would find fault with, that, that, that chunk of the work-

Pat: Right

Zach Elwood: seems to be a, a good thing, clearly a good thing to me. Yeah.

Pat: Yeah. Yeah. That, and that’s the bulk of the work. A- and I… Now, remember PSYOPS, you know, the force demands of them to influence enemy behavior. If they influence an enemy commander to do something that makes a mistake and, you know, they take out, I don’t know, a company worth of men, but it saves the other 5,000 ’cause now our guys can get in that position.

You drop the leaflets here and say, “Hey, we got this. You better surrender or you’re next.” Mm-hmm. You know, that’s another way they do it too.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pat: Um, and that, that, that gets into, uh, the different colors of PSYOPS, which, which, you know-

Zach Elwood: Yeah. There’s broad… And, and that’s what I was- Yeah … I was gonna ask you about the, you know, getting into the more deceptive elements which can cause kind of blowback, whether it’s enemies or, or domestically, you know, perceptually.

It’s like one thing I was reading about, I don’t know if you have any takes on this, but I don’t even know if it’s proven, but I was reading about how- Mm-hmm … like the fall, taking down Saddam Hussein’s statue, you know, during the, uh-

Pat: Uh, the invasion in 2003?

Zach Elwood: Yeah, two, yeah, 2003- Was that it? Yeah … invasion of Iraq, and apparently there was some reports that that was, like, a manipulated thing to make it seem like the Iraqi citizens were taking it down when it was actually, you know, American troops taking it down.

I don’t know if you know anything about that, but that’s just an… And I don’t even know if it’s proven, uh, but-

Pat: Yeah, I, I don’t, I don’t have any, uh, personal knowledge to that. I… Now, as a historian, I could see where that could occur, but as, as a personal thing, I- Basically if it,

Zach Elwood: if it occurred, if it occurred, they were trying to affect, like, the morale of the, the, the citizenry and, and the troops

Pat: and stuff.

And they, and, you know, if it did occur, they would’ve had to use the Iraqis that were of that place. And I mean, it’s, it’s not unheard of that, that significant things are, uh, kinda Hollywooded up. So an example would be, uh, you can actually read this in, uh, General, um, Arthur McChrystal’s book, who Arthur McChrystal is the, uh, the uncle of Stanley, uh, General Stanley McChrystal.

He was the deputy PSYOP commander under General McClure, who is another famous PSYOP-er. And anyway, when they, they finished up in Italy, there’s a famous thing of, uh, uh, the Italian general surrendering and all that stuff to, uh, I can’t remember the commander off the top of my head. But, uh, that was all PSYOP guys did, staged it, did the production, uh, did the, uh, did the video, all that sort of thing.

Um, the videos you see of, like, the Italians, uh, picking up leaflets and taking them to wherever, that was all staged because how in the heck are you gonna have cameras on the Italians while the ground hasn’t been seized? And they’re, uh, oh yeah, they’re, you just have to… You know, when you, you apply logic to this, I’ll, I’ll put it to you this way.

If you apply common sense, you will see where PSYOP products exist- Mm … and where they don’t.

Zach: Mm.

Pat: Uh, that would be an example there, uh, historically speaking. Or, uh, do you remember when, um, the, the famous reel of General MacArthur and, uh, the Emperor of Japan?

Zach Elwood: Mm. No.

Pat: Uh, there’s that famous thing where I think it shows them and you see the height difference between the two.

Uh, it’s worth checking out. Anyway, that was a PSYOP production, and that, that was, uh, probably General Bonner Fellers, another famous PSYOP officer. Stop me if I get on these tangents. He’s a fascinating guy, um, because he was behind, or he was the one that made the argument to General MacArthur to preserve the Emperor of Japan.

Zach Elwood: Oh.

Pat: Uh, he, he was a cultural expert on Japan. Uh, he actually wrote a book called, I think it was Mind of the Japanese Soldier in the ’30s, and, uh, he actually predicted kamikaze pilots about 10 years before it happened.

Zach Elwood: Interesting.

Pat: Um-

Zach Elwood: Oh …

Pat: just because he understood the, uh, uh, the mind, the mentality of the Japanese military at the time.

Uh, but anyway, he was able to cons- uh, uh, uh, convince MacArthur to, uh, not bring the emperor up for war crimes. Not saying that the emperor did anything like that, but there has been some research that says some of his relatives could have been. Um, I’ve never seen anything that really pinned them down, but they had seen what was going on in Nuremberg and said, uh, they, they made a, a, a distinct choice that, that the emperor is too important to the m- the Japanese people, that we have to, we have to keep him if we’re going to, uh, rebuild this nation- Right

for, for the Japanese people. And

Zach Elwood: minimize the conflict post-war and all that. Yeah.

Pat: Yeah. ‘Cause there, there’s a lot, a lot in that, that war that gets glossed over, especially when the Japanese nation was Concerned with us, but they were absolutely terrified of the communists taking hold in Japan after the war.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Pat: Um, so I’m sure that had to be part of the, uh, uh, the equation o- of, of when, when they decided to keep the emperor.

Zach Elwood: Uh, yeah. It’s like, obviously the, what, what has been done in PSYOP, uh, work is tremendously varied and there can be things that are more clearly controversial than other things to- Yeah … to put it s-

Pat: Yeah

Zach Elwood: to put it, uh, lightly. But it seems like the, the more deceptive an, an act is, the more likely it is to be perceived by someone as, like, underhanded and wrong and such.

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Which helps explain, like, this spectrum of things in the, in the PSYOP area, and clearly some things are, are gonna be deceptive. That’s kind of, like, the nature of the work that’s done.

But it does seem like, yeah, speaking of the blowback that’s possible, it’s like … And it seems like some of the things that have been done in the past, it’s like maybe they were effective, maybe they weren’t, but regardless, maybe sometimes there’s a blowback in terms of perception of the, of the, of the organization and, like, maybe it could even sometimes hurt their, you know, cause a- and actually hurt their- Right

mission long term, even, even if it achieves, achieves some short-term success- Yeah … or something.

Pat: Yeah, and actually on a, on, on that piece, have you heard of Operation Mincemeat? So Operation Mincemeat, I believe it was British PSYOP that came up. I, I could be wrong and someone will like, “Ah, that was the S- British SOE, Pat.

They had nothing to do with it.” But the, uh, the British SOE and the Americans, uh, they essentially, they found a, uh, a homeless person’s, uh, corpse and, uh, I don’t know how they got … I, sometimes you don’t ask questions on these things, you know. Well, yeah, no, they, you get them from the, the, the, the, the farm down the street type of thing, you know.

Anyway, um, they dressed him, I think it was in like an admiralty’s, British Admiralty’s clothes, and they put plans on him for a landing. They, they made it appear like, uh, a U-boat had hit his ship and he washed ashore, and the Germans believed he really was part of the British Admiralty, and he had these orders in his pocket, and it actually affected their decision-making process.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pat: Um, and it’s not to say that that’s the silver bullet that makes them do it. It’s a, an amalgamation of a lot of different stuff nested on each other. Um- Right. It’s just a way to

Zach Elwood: distract from the-

Pat: Right.

Zach Elwood: One of many

Pat: ways- Right … to try to

Zach Elwood: distract. Yeah.

Pat: Um, a- and it just goes to show, um, you got some really clever people that have been in this line of work historically to, to think up something.

I would never come up with anything like that.

Zach Elwood: But that’s a good example. It’s like … ‘Cause I, I wouldn’t, I don’t, I don’t think many people would find that, like- immoral, you know? It’s like-

Pat: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm …

Zach Elwood: because, you know, i- at some sense all’s fair in, in war kind of aspect or at le- or at least a lot of th- a lot of things in terms of deception, uh- Yeah

are fair. I think it’s like, yeah, that’s an interesting, because it’s like most people I don’t think would find that, like, wrong in some sense, but they might find, like, fooling people into thinking the Iraqi citizens were tearing down Saddam when they weren’t. It’s like there, there’s a weird spectrum of- Yeah

operations where the, where people can find certain things, you know, beyond, beyond what they should be doing and certain other things not- Yeah … you know? Uh-

Pat: And, and it all depends because it, it might be a condition where, like, let’s, to, to your point with the Iraq statue thing, I, you, you know, me, I’m sitting here thinking about this stuff in a historic tense.

If you had the team or whoever was down there say, “Hey, you guys know you can, you can tear that statue down if you want to.” And they go, “We can?” “Yeah, go ahead.”

Zach Elwood: Encourage

Pat: them,

Zach Elwood: yeah.

Pat: Um, encourage them. That’s a little different than, like, st- and, you know, that could’ve been another thing to happen. Uh, and then that gets into was that deceptive if you, if you just encouraged them to do something they kinda already wanted to do- Right

but didn’t know they were allowed to do it?

Zach Elwood: Right. It almost seems like, yeah, it, it’s almost like there’s this spectrum too of, like, the more it involves citizens and not the, not the combatants, it’s like people will find the involvement of citizens more controversial too- Yeah … or something, right? Um.

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pat: And it, yeah, and it’s an interesting, uh, it, it’s an interesting point, uh- I know that the PSYOPers were with the Marines, uh, during that invasion, but I don’t know where else they could’ve been besides that. Like, you can go look up, uh, their, like the awards and honors of 9th Battalion, it’ll actually place where they were.

I don’t even know that any of our guys were even in Baghdad yet. I’m not saying that that’s not the case, it’s just me as a PSYOP historian, I’m, I’m going through my brain to think, uh, who could’ve done that or, or who

Zach Elwood: was, uh- And who, and who know, and who knows? It’s like, to your point, it, it’s, it’s like not, not everything is like an official PSYOP.

It could’ve been something like off the cuff where s- people just did it without like any sort of like, uh, real- Yeah … you know, approval or maybe it wasn’t even related to PSYOP if it, if it happened, you know. So just to say, it’s like, I mean, it, the world’s a big place and like I, I feel like sometimes people, throughout time, people are making all sorts of decisions, like we’re not gonna agree with all sorts of things that people do over time, and it’s like to, to try to castigate like an entire section based on, uh, and I’m not say, even saying that many people would even have, a lot of people wouldn’t even have found that that controversial.

But I do think there’s this thing of like, you know, clearly America and the various divisions- Yeah … of, of things, it’s a big service area, so there’s gonna be various things that people disagree with at certain points in time, yeah.

Pat: And, and I, and I think too, I think on, on your point with the statue thing is people like to extrapolate that to say, “Well, that means that it was staged, that, that the people really didn’t want the Americans there at all.”

And that, and that in itself is just not true either. There was, I would say-

Zach Elwood: Well, that get, that, that gets into the, the blowback aspect because by, i- if they did- Yeah … if they did manipulate that, it almost, the blow- the blowback is then like people perceiving it as like, “Oh, nobody wanted the Americans to be there,” right?

Like, that, that’s, yeah, that’s kind of the, the opposite blowback kind of effect. Just to note that I cut out some theoretical and subjective discussion about the Iraq War that Pat requested me to cut out. I also wanna add that regarding that Saddam Hussein statue toppling, I don’t actually know much about it, whether it was actually a deceptive PSYOP, whether official or unofficial.

It was just a theory I happened to read about when doing research for this episode. But regardless of whether it was or was not an official PSYOP, it still seemed worth talking about as a theoretical example and about how people can react to such things. Okay, back to the talk. Clearly many people use the word psyop in, like, this way that has nothing to do with, you know, army psyop work.

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: And so many people just use the term to kind of refer to, like, anything that they think where some group is, you know, underhandedly, deceptively doing something. And in many cases it’s a very vague kind of conspiracy-esque kind of thing where, like, somebody’s doing a psyop somewhere on us. We don’t- Yeah.

we don’t really know what’s going on. It’s just kind of a way to, a blanket term to capture things. But, but I’m curious how, yeah, how, how have you seen- Yeah … the, the word used? I, I

Pat: saw, I saw that gentleman, uh, who’s the Navy SEAL guy that has the show? Uh-

Zach Elwood: It’s not like Shawn Ryan or somebody, is it?

Pat: Sh- it was Shawn Ryan.

It was Shawn Ryan. Um, that guy, I don’t… He’s… Nobody from my community knows him. He’s never had a PSYOP’er on. Um- I mean,

Zach Elwood: yeah, he’s had- He

Pat: presented-

Zach Elwood: He’s, he’s had Chase Hughes on, which should tell you a lot about the quality of his, uh… I mean, I, yeah, I knew Chase Hughes was a, was a fraud within like a few minutes of listening to him, and Shawn Ryan invites him on to, uh, you know, pick his brain. And that tells you everything you need to know about Shawn Ryan, in my opinion.

Pat: And, and yeah, there are PSYOP’ers, uh, veteran PSYOP’ers who are willing to go on, on, uh, Mr. Ryan’s show and talk about it. Um, and I guess it d- it doesn’t sell butts in seats or eyeballs, if you will. Y- you know, uh, ’cause I think he presented, like, They Live, which I do love that movie.

Uh, and he shows himself as, as, uh, Roddy Piper’s character walking through the town, and, you know, he’s got the, the money that has… He puts the sunglasses on and says, “This is your God,” and all that sort of stuff. And he made us out like we’re boogeymen. And, uh, like I said, most of this job is very mundane.

It’s, it’s getting civilians out of danger. Um, it’s encouraging the support for government. It’s advising, uh, uh, allies’ news services to report truthfully and that sort of thing. And, and obviously we try to paint whatever allied government we’re with in a good light a- and that sort of thing. But I, I would say, like, the things like the PSYOP is not, it’s, it’s…

PSYOP is not gonna… You go to PSYOP training, it’s not gonna make you a mind reader. Uh, it’s not gonna make you a human lie detector. It’s not gonna make you a clinical psychologist. It’s not gonna make you an interrogator or a, uh, a, a, a universal expert in human behavior, right? Uh, I, I, I would say, I say, like, a cre- a credential has, has boundaries, right?

Uh, honest people tell you where those boundaries are.

Zach Elwood: I was gonna say, I, I mean, I could be wrong about Shawn Ryan and, and also about Chase Hughes, but… Well, I know I’m not wrong about Chase Hughes. But, uh- When, when, uh, like when they… I, I believe when they are talking about PSYOPs, like, they’re not even necessarily talking about, you know, Army PSYOP division.

They’re, they’re, they’re talking about, like, even though Chase Hughes also claims to, you know, be involved in the Army PSYOP- Yeah … but, but I think they’re, they’re mostly speaking about it in this vague way that’s like some shadowy group in control somewhere- Some shadowy- Well, because, you know- … government

when Chase Hughes was on the Shawn Ryan podcast, that episode, like, Shawn Ryan says something like, “What about, uh, Epstein? What about, uh, Ukraine? What about China?” And they basically say, like, “They’re all a PSYOP.”

Shawn Ryan: Charlie Kirk was just assassinated. Is that a PSYOP? Is the Epstein shit a PSYOP? I mean Ukraine, China

Chase Hughes: All Psy-op

Shawn Ryan: Everything

Zach Elwood: That just gives you a sense of like, so they’re- Yeah, they-

they’re basically just assigning like some shadowy force is trying to manipulate the, us in some way. But it’s like, it’s very vague. It’s just, it’s just paranoid because it’s like, what exa- who exactly are you saying is, is creating all of this myriad of-

Pat: Right …

Zach Elwood: narratives,

Pat: right? And the i-

Zach Elwood: Like, yeah

Pat: And of course, the irony is if, if you study the PSY Warrior, uh, website, and like I said, the excellent website for anyone to study the history of the branch or, or force, um, PSYOP has to fight for its life to exist after every war.

Um, World War I, uh, the, the psychologic subsection gets shut down. Um, World War II happens and they gotta jump through their butt to find the experts from the first war. Um, and thank goodness they found them, ’cause the Germans, man, you wanna talk about a psychological warfare force, they had, had it in the, in the, in the ’20s and ’30s.

And so then you have World War II, the force expands, uh, then the force shrinks again. Uh, not to, not to the extent that it was before World War II. Korea kicks off. Did you know that in, uh, Korea, the first action of the war against North Koreans was a PSYOP mission? Within hours of them coming over the parallel and attacking the South Koreans, they got leaflets dropped on them.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Interesting.

Pat: Um, with it, with, yeah, very, it- it- it an interesting thing, uh, there. And then of course, uh, after the war, uh, it gets shut down again. Um, or nearly shut down, and then they think, then Vietnam gets hot and they go, “Oh my God, we need PSYOP forces.” And then they bring them back, and then Vietnam ends.

And then, uh, uh, the, uh, the Church committee hearings happen, and then of course they overreact, they shut PSYOP down completely again. Then Grenada happens, that’s a disaster for PSYOP. Then we have Panama, which is crazy successful for PSYOP. Uh, ’91 is probably the high watermark of PSYOP. Then it starts ticking down again, then it expands again, then ticks down again.

So there’s… It, it’s, it’s hard because you can’t, you can’t put a serial number on it and you can’t count influence.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Yeah. It’s like, it’s like marketing or communication in general. It’s hard to des- it’s hard to get the metrics for how it’s

Pat: w- we’re actually working. Exactly.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pat: Exactly. It’s, it’s, it’s like the quote that Saturn years ago, “I know it when I see it,” type of thing.

Uh, and that, you make, raise a good point. So your good PSYOPers typ- typically, uh, or historically, it’s an amalgamation of folks from psychology, from marketing, uh, that can do data analytics, uh, can do anthropology, uh, linguists, um, graphics artists, graphic designers, designers, uh, folks that understand radio, radio theory, all that sort of thing.

Um, it’s a hodgepodge of all these people coming together. And you can imagine, um, how, how hard it is to herd that group of cats. But, uh, a lot of our guys can go get jobs in Madison Avenue coming out or Hollywood.

Zach Elwood: Right. It’s about persuasion. It’s a lot of the

Pat: same-

Zach Elwood: Yeah. It’s, uh-

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: I mean, the thing that strikes me is there’s just so much, uh, paranoia these days about such a wide-

Pat: Yeah

Zach Elwood: range of things. And like, I think people, a big part of this is like people are just fundamentally paranoid about any attempt at persuasion at some level. Like, I mean, assuming it’s something that they don’t like, right? So let’s… I’ll give you a specific example. It’s like, and Chase Hughes traffics in this a lot, where it’s like things that people don’t like the government trying to persuade them of, you know, gets lumped in with, with, uh, PSYOPs.

But it’s al- it’s also to like completely banal Whether you like it or not, it’s also, it’s completely banal and expected that a government or any large group will try to persuade people, it- whether it’s its citizens or expl- you know, and we’re not talking about PSYOP operations here. Yeah. We’re t- we’re just talking about like a government’s gonna, for example, like, uh, uh, whether you agree with it or not, it, it’s not a, uh, crazy conspiracy that they tried to persuade people to, you know, for example, uh, had like anti-smoking campaigns or, uh, you know, wear seatbelt campaigns or take the vaccine- Mm-hmm

campaigns. Like again, you can disagree with it or not, but it’s like-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: it’s not, it’s not, it’s not like, it, it’s completely expected that they’ll try to persuade people to, to achieve their, whatever the, the goal is. Like you… But it’s like, for some people it’s like if they see things they don’t like, don’t agree with, if they s- if they see any type of persuasion campaign, they’ll be like lump it in with some really horrible thing happening, right?

Pat: S- something nefari- something nefarious. A- and yeah, and I mean, they’re just doing what the government i- is charged to do and protect American people and that sort of thing. And now you can- However they view it, yeah. Right. And you, and you know, they’re human beings like any of us. But I, I will say just having been served in PSYOP and, and a veteran of it and all that, you’re gonna have a hard time doing nefarious things in the job, um, that are illegal or ethically and morally repugnant because, uh, there’s too many people that will do the right thing.

Zach Elwood: Right, there’s so many people in the loop, and I, and I think that gets back to the, the paranoid, overly paranoid views is, like, this view that people can cover up all these things. I think it’s actually, the record shows that it’s actually very hard to cover up things because usually there’s so many people in the loop that, that so many things will-

Pat: Right

Zach Elwood: come

Pat: out,

Zach Elwood: you know?

Pat: E- e- especially in this day and age with the technology. Yeah. Now, I mean, there are some rabbit holes that I’m willing to go down on stuff from ages ago that, that I certainly think, um, there’s, there’s weirdness there, and I don’t know-

Zach Elwood: Sure …

Pat: how to take it. And I,

Zach Elwood: I don’t mean to say that there’s no conspiracies- No, yeah, yeah

or, or plots. Yeah. There’s clearly people plotting all the time, but I, I guess my point is, like, this view that, like, w- they’re, we’re surrounded by all sorts of secret plots. I think the record shows- Yeah … that that’s very, very unlikely.

Pat: At, at that scale, I, I’m willing to always give people the benefit of the doubt that they’re, they’re t- they’re trying to do the best that they can.

And some people, you know, they don’t get up to the bar of whatever position they’re in and, and maybe they, they don’t make the grade. And maybe, I, I forget what the line is, but don’t d- uh, uh, don’t tie to conspiracy what, that which can be explained with incompetence.

Zach Elwood: Right, exactly. You know? And- Not, yeah, not, it’s not malice usually, it’s, it’s just incompetence or inefficiency, whatever it is.

Yeah, yeah. I was curious to get your take on this. It seems like, I mean, A, you’ve got all the technology which makes it easier than ever to expose things. You can more easily record things, emails, audio recordings, surveillance, all these kinds of things. You can easily set up things to release information after, if you get killed or whatever it is.

So it’s like there, there’s all this informational stuff that makes the bigger plots harder to achieve. But I would also, I’m als- I also think that the, uh The more political polarization also creates this more chaotic field, playing field where it’s like, say some government agency was trying to do something secret, all it takes is like one person to really be against that, um, that, that what they’re doing and find it immoral and bad to leak that.

Right. And like polarization creates this thing where it’s like more and more people easily get on other sides of whatever it is because they associate it with political stances. So it, it becomes this more volatile mix of like, you’re even, even more likely than decades ago to have somebody on the team being like, you know, “Fuck these, fuck this group basically.”

Yeah. “I’m gonna mess them up,” basically.

Pat: Right. Yeah, yeah. And of course, and then you, you have to, like I, I was talking about earlier, you gotta be wondering about, um, the adversary’s motivation. Are they faming, fanning the flames of the polarization? Because the more, um, destabilized we are, what can we not do?

We can’t affect the, the space that the, the adversary operates in, right? Um, so that, that’s a, that’s another take to it too, it is, um, I, I would tell your audience, always, uh, be mindful of the media you consume. Um, I, I did this as an archeologist when I got out, but, uh, and did research, but also when I was a PSYOPer, um- I always tried to avoid consuming stuff that I agreed with.

Especially now with the algorithms, uh, like for YouTube and that sort of thing, it has you dialed in. It knows what you wanna see and it, it, it will do things that you already agree with or that are in your, um, basically, uh, things that are in your bailiwick, I guess is a better way to put it. Yeah,

Zach Elwood: it sends you down a, a emphas- it emphasizes what you agree with and sends you down a deeper rabbit hole for that

Pat: stuff.

Right.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pat: And it act- and it’ll condition you to radical- radicalize you over time-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Pat: and before you know it. And so that’s why I always encourage, like listen to opposing voices and don’t, don’t dehumanize anybody. Um, that was something I did as a PSYOP. I never dehumanized anybody, uh, in the, in the nations.

I, I looked at them like they’re a human being that has a right to exist. A- and how, how do I, uh, affect the mission so that they can ultimately live in peace and all that sort of thing. W- uh, for you, honestly, I would say always, always, uh, consume information. Just be mindful o- of what you’re consuming ’cause everybody’s got something to sell you.

And, uh, uh, I, I, I remember reading a story about a guy that I, I think he was radicalized, I can’t remember to what specifically, on YouTube, and then, uh, he realized it and then he started watching the other, the ulterior thing, and they flipped him, and then he was radicalized for the other side.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pat: Um-

Zach Elwood: You gotta watch out on this, uh…

I mean, I, I started, I had a episode on this podcast where I st- I talked about, I watched a couple kinda conspiracy… I, I guess I paused too long on the wrong videos on Instagram.

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: And then, like, my feed was filled with, like, schizophrenic conspiracy theory stuff. It like, that’s all it took, yeah. I have, I’ve basically talked to nobody about this idea.

I was curious to get your opinion on it. I thought that the, like, the Russian, uh, attempts to meddle in the 2016 election, so for example, you know, it, it was known that they created these various, you know, social media posts and they were also creating media for, for both sides of, you know, bo- both sides of the equation.

Like, they had, like, a, um- Uh, you know, a bl- a Black Lives Matter kind of, uh- Yeah, yeah … content they were creating. But the, but, you know, lots of research, I talked about this in my polarization books, lots of research showed that that was, like, a drop in the bucket, you know? And, and, and, and it’s a mistake to think that that had a big influence.

But the thing that struck me about it was, like, I think the, I think the goal was not to shift the election, ’cause I don’t think they thought that they even had that capability, and they didn’t even make that much content. I think the goal was to undermine people’s confidence in the election, because what they did was create a dynamic where no matter what gr- what, what, no matter which group won, the other group would doubt the elections more.

Right. Which w- was, is basically undermining our stability- Yeah … and our creating more incentives for destabilization. And, and they’re,

Pat: yeah, and they’re sowing chaos. I mean-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, they’re sowing chaos and, and doubt. And, like, that’s, to me, that was the real operation. But people would, people were interpreting as, as, like, well, they were either gonna influence the election, they were trying to influence the election.

But I’m like, there’s something deeper where they’re, the, they’re, they’re, they’re- Yeah … undermining the whole, you know, they’re creating discord, yeah.

Pat: Right, right, right. And the, uh, it’s interesting to bring that up. So I cannot remember the name of the organization. It was disestablished in the early 1990s, but that was essentially your force that protected the United States from enemy propaganda.

Um, it, it was a, it was a something of information. I, I, I’m sorry that I can’t recall the name at the moment. Um, you know, Americans have always been skeptical of, uh, influence organizations, uh, at, at a national level. And, uh, they’re, they’re… Certainly I can see why, because there’s always a danger that they could be politicized and, uh, weaponized.

I was actually concerned when they had, um, the organizations during World War I. Um, then the same thing happened during World War II. They had the Office of War Information, which PsyOp fell under the European theater, and then there was a domestic wing of it. So, um, if you guys ever wondered why you don’t see, like, Uncle Sam posters and, like, save money for war bonds and all that, that’s because of the Smith-Mundt Act.

Um- Oh … because those were PsyOp products. Um, but they were aimed domestically. But once the Smith-Mundt Act came into effect, they stopped doing it. And you might say, “Well, why, why did they come up with the Smith-Mundt Act?” Well, I believe it was, like, 1947, uh, 1948 timeframe. No, I’m sorry, I’ll back up. That’s, I think, when Smith-Mundt Act started to occur.

The nucleus of it occurred in, uh, ’45. So What was happening was we were doing daylight, uh, bombing raids on Germany, in German-held territory, ’cause we basically held the skies for the most part. One of the reasons why was primarily to send a PSYOP message to the Germans, “You’re toast. You can’t even defend your own airspace anymore.

We control your skies totally.” And the other one was they found that more civilians were being killed at nighttime, so they moved to daytime raids, uh, to mitigate civilian deaths. So anyway, the Office of War Information produced a product, uh, that it showed in, in movie theaters across the country, um, because senators wanted to go back to nighttime raids for whatever reason.

And in this movie theaters, they’d say to the American viewer, uh, you know, “Here is the value of daytime raids. Go tell your senator that you want to continue daytime raids.” And so there you would say, “Who’s the target? The American people’s the target.” No, the senators were the target. The American in the movie theater was the, uh, method, right?

Zach Elwood: Right. The pressure point. Yeah.

Pat: Right. So then the American people then tell the senators, “We want daytime bombing raids,” and the senators freaked out, and then that led to the Smith-Mundt Act.

Zach Elwood: Oh,

Pat: interesting.

Zach Elwood: Um- Yeah.

Pat: Yeah. Yeah. So I- Interesting … I, I looked it up. I was… The, the, the, the organization I was thinking of was the United States Information Agency.

During the Cold War, uh, it handled public diplomacy and information programs aimed at foreign audiences. It’s abolished in ’99, and many of its, uh, many of its actions were folded into the, uh, framework of the State Department. That’s exactly what happened to the OWI after World War II. It was folded into the State Department, then it kind of, it kind of died on the vine.

So, um, essentially we d- d- you know, I can’t speak to now whether it does or doesn’t, but, uh, in a fairly recent historical context, it doesn’t have a method for protecting the American people from enemy propaganda.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pat: Like, I, I mean, you, you could go right now on Twitter and you would be, uh, inundated with it.

You could go on Facebook, you would be inundated with it. Um, I, I’m trying to think of a good example o- o- of something recently happening that, that would’ve been-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, but to your point, you’re, you’re basically saying, like, in order to combat that, you would kind of need to create your own

propaganda of some sort, which maybe is why we don’t have good, um… There’s not really much in the way of protection ’cause it, protecting against it would get into creating your own-

Pat: Right, right …

Zach Elwood: persuasion or something, or

Pat: And, and, uh, and, and in this day and age it’s, it’s a bit difficult. And I guess I, they, maybe I should probably back up and, and, and explain maybe where, where propaganda the word comes from.

So, uh, propaganda, uh, originally comes from, uh, the Roman Catholic Church. Uh, it, I believe it was during the Counter-Reformation, they would hand out the books. Uh, it was a, uh, a Latin word. I, I think it’s along the lines of to spread the truth or spread the word Uh, or basically to inform. Um, that went into, uh, World War I where they termed us as propaganda units.

Um, after World War I, propaganda be- took on a negative connotation. It meant deceptive marketing and that sort of thing, and all the boogeyman stuff we know it to be. And, uh, that’s when we changed the name to psychological warfare in World War II. Then during Vietnam, we determined psychological warfare wasn’t the right term because it mitigated us to combat.

Um, psychological operations said, “Well, no, we don’t just do things against the bad guy. We help civilian populace. We, we tell them, you know, uh, wash your hands. Don’t, don’t go to the bathroom in your fields. Uh, uh, here’s the medical cap.” Uh, actually to this da- well, not so much now, uh, PSYOP used to help when hurricanes would hit the United States because we would be the gap fillers because you, you couldn’t access the news anymore.

So we would tell you, “Okay, this is where the, uh, resupply area is, uh, to get your goods,” you know, your food and water and that sort of thing, or crowd control. You know, they were down in the Haiti earthquakes, uh, helping there. So there, there is benevolent stuff they do. It’s just not enemy-focused. Uh, and then of course they went to, uh, MISO after that- Right

which was very unpopular. Um-

Zach Elwood: M-I-S-O.

Pat: Yeah, military information support operations. And I was actually p- part of the wheel that got that turned off. I, I didn’t like it immediately, um, because I, I think we weren’t being truthful. Like we were still doing PSYOP. We just changed it to MISO. Uh, MISO was the more digestible term.

Don, uh, uh, uh, uh, Secretary Rumsfeld preferred MISO. Uh, the Brits actually tried it before us. It was wildly unpopular and they went back ’cause then the Brit- the British people said, “Why are you deceiving us about what you are? I can clearly see you’re still doing PSYOP stuff.” Um-

Zach Elwood: It’s interesting that there’s this branding.

You know, it, it seems like any, no matter what the word was, there’s always gonna be some branding issue. But like it, yeah, like o- obviously propaganda took on a negative term. Uh, and then like s- psychological operations took on a negative turn. I, I imagine that has something to do with like the past of like the MKUltra, you know, associations and this like underhanded kind of association.

So it, it, it would inevitably take on like a negative connotation. So then they were like, “Maybe we should change it again.”

Pat: And, and then of c- uh, of course the, the, like stuff like MKUltra, that had nothing to do with US Army PSYOP- Right, it had nothing to do … at all. That was a whole- Yeah … different… Now, I, I mind it to your, to your audience, I’m, I’m being specific to, uh, you know, Army PSYOP.

I have no idea what the other Elements in the craft would be, would, uh, do, uh, in a mo- I know historically I, I can talk about it. Um, like, uh, the OSS had morale operations, um, which, which Army PSYOP is descended from that, uh, from a, uh, spiritual concept, not lineage-wise, ’cause it, it was a civilian thing. Uh, OSS is what gave birth to the, uh, uh, s- oh gosh, uh, the, I think it was the CIDG or something.

I, I can’t remember. And then that later became the Central Intelligence Agency. Uh, and then of course you have, um, other government organizations that have things, did Would resemble PSYOP to some degree. So for example, um, your hostage negotiation teams, um, very much resemble some of the things that, uh, tactical PSYOP teams do, like tactical call-outs on loudspeakers, um, where you’re trying to convince the bad guy to come out of the building.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, standoff situations.

Pat: Yeah. Exactly. A- and you could, you can see the line where, oh, that’s just like a hostage negotiation thing. Well, so yeah, there’s a lot of, lot of the same stuff applies to it, you know? But, but, uh, I was trying to think of like a, a, a modern, uh, example, uh, of where they, where the bad guys interfere with us.

You’d have like, I think, like there was a report from the Department of Justice about, uh, Russian doppelganger fake news sites where they made themselves look legitimate, and they used like fake profiles and AI-generated content as it… I, uh, Department of Justice has a good write-up on it. You know, it, and that’s classic, uh, enemy and a bad guy deception.

They m- they make the source look local, familiar, or journalistic so that, that you, the audience, e- evaluates it differently. In the elections, uh, the enemy was, uh, doing different influences, influence actors to, again, make, make, make the American people lose faith in the system, essentially. Um, I think, do you remember the robo?

There was a, there was an AI, uh, robocall of President Biden that was spreading back in 2024. Hmm.

Zach Elwood: Uh,

Pat: so that, that, the FCC report at, uh, but, uh, people in New Hampshire were getting AI-generated robocalls impersonating President Biden and telling them not to vote in a primary.

Zach Elwood: Oh, interesting.

Pat: Yeah. Um, so yeah, the FCC did, did, did something on that.

And that, that’s just like open source. You can read news about it. Uh, if, if you, you can imagine it, uh, there’s, there’s just a tremendous amount of inundation on the, on the World Wide Web, if you will, uh, from enemy, enemy sources.

Zach Elwood: Well, that, that, that’s kind of interesting with the, um, you know, I do th- I do think getting back to that idea of like a lot of plots will be outed, it’s hard to keep secret plots.

I think, you know, places like Russia, maybe, I’m sure other countries, the, I think, I think a lot of, some of their operations, they know that their, that information will get out there, so you have to choose psychological operations that even if, you know, they’re gonna be successful whether the information gets out there about what they’re doing or not, right?

So like, for example, like creating, sowing discord about our election security and, uh, you know, who won and that there might have been a foreign per, uh, inf- influence in the elections, it’s like it doesn’t matter if the information about their operation gets out, like that’s gonna be successful because their, their goal is to sow discord out.

Right. They- Right? Yeah. So it’s like y- they have, a good operation takes into account that the information about the operation might get out and it won’t really make a difference because they’ll still achieve the, the main goal, right?

Pat: Yeah. Yeah. A- and, and a good example, and this isn’t new, uh, the Soviets actually did something to the effect back in the, uh, Nixon-Kennedy election, believe it or not.

Uh, they preferred, uh, Kennedy Um, and they were running influence ops to get Kennedy elected. Um, I, I can’t remember… I can’t pull the specifics now, uh, because they, they were terrified of Nixon. And of course, you know, uh, uh, President Kennedy eventually, you know, he stepped up to the plate when, when it, it, it was time and the Russians were testing him.

Uh, but that, that they believed that he would be a pushover. So- Right.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. ‘

Pat: Cause Nixon was more of a hawk. Yeah. So- Right. Right. Yeah. And, and so they, they never stopped doing that stuff. Uh- Right … I would just say certainly, I mean, it would be arrogant to presume our enemies don’t have an interest in our election processes and, uh, a- and would attempt to do anything that, that, that causes the most chaos internally to us.

And they might even hypothetically use pundits, uh, American pundits to do it, you know? Uh, especially if they’re paying them and, and say, “Hey, here’s your talking points.” You know? Um, I’m not saying that that’s the case now. That, that would be something in a historic context.

Zach Elwood: It… Yeah. I, I think the point, uh, ’cause some people think I’m, like, too optimistic and it’s like, about, about, you know, the lack of, uh, how plots are hard to pull off and le- you know, pr- pretty rare to pull off.

But it’s like, I, I think, I think to, to me it’s about being skeptical of all, all sorts of things. Well, yeah, you should be. It’s like… Yeah. All, all sorts of things could be true, uh, about people, uh, attempting to deceive you. It’s also true that, like, we live in a very polarized time where people are, are in various bubbles of thought, so you have to be skeptical about all sorts of things, you know?

Right.

Pat: Yeah. And remember, remember what we, we talked about earlier. The primary thesis of PSYOP is it deals in the truth, right? If you, if you lie, it’s gonna come out of the wash. I know it’s a, it’s a Third Rail subject, but let’s take the Vietnam War, for example. They, they were only able to sell that w- the, the narrative started to fall apart because the reality on the ground was not matching what was on the nightly news, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pat: Um, i- if you recall, uh, they would call, uh… It was like the official report from public affairs back during the Vietnam War. They called it the 5:00 Follies, because they would tell you that everything in Vietnam is going great, and it, it, it wasn’t. So e- e- eventually, if you are skeptical on everything, um, y- you know, and you search for the truth and, and the evidence of the thing, uh, uh, you’ll, you’ll, you’ll, you’ll detect a PSYOP every time, I would say.

If the adversary or anybody, whoever’s doing it, um, a- as long as you, you look for the facts on the ground about it, um, where- wherever it may lie. Um, and there’s no, there’s no magic mind control where I, I sit there with you and hypnotize you or, or put subliminal messages in your mind. You would… You actually condition yourself by, by what media you intake every day.

Zach Elwood: I don’t know if you wanna say anything about, uh, Chase Hughes or, you know, I can, we, you don’t have to say anything about it now, I can just add it to the intro, but do you wanna talk about some people that, like him, who, uh, basically are putting out some, uh, false ideas

Pat: about the- Yeah. So, yeah, he’s a, he’s an interesting gentleman.

Uh, I, I had never heard of him. Uh, I, I saw, like, a clip of him on, I think it was Joe Rogan’s show, and he talked about going down to train the Psyop divisions at Fort Bragg. And I was thinking to myself, “I have never heard of this guy,” and I’m a member of the Psyop Association. Um, I started asking the team there, “Hey, have any of you guys heard of this guy?”

And then I asked some other friends of mine. You know, I’ve been around the community 20 years. Nobody heard of this guy. And I was like, “Oh, that, that sends off a red flare.” And then I, I started listening to some of the stuff he was saying, and I was like, you know, I, I’ve … He’s a, he’s a fellow veteran and I won’t, I won’t denigrate his military service or, or, uh, uh- Yeah.

He’s a Navy,

Zach Elwood: uh, quartermaster-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: uh, was his main thing, yeah. A-

Pat: and, and you know, and I, I think i- uh, whatever you did in the military, you’re inte- what you do is integral to the national defense of this country and you should be proud of it, no matter what, what job you do. Um, now I, I … He’s trying to make a living, I get it.

Um, but I, I … It upset me a bit that, that he was kind of y- Uh, I don’t know. I don’t wanna say bringing shade on the PSYOP regiment, but, uh, if that’s the best way to put it, uh, because there, there’s some stuff that he teaches, and I know you deep dived on it, that I’m like, “Ah, that doesn’t… That kinda like sounds like pseudoscience.

I don’t know about this.” Um- Well,

Zach Elwood: yeah, the, the fundamental, like people have pointed out more, more, uh, observ- observing people i- in, in the comments of, of his and my w- my videos on that, people are like, he claims, you know, it, it, it fundamentally at a, at a very basic level doesn’t make sense that he’s both claiming to teach, uh, these amazing top secret PSYOP or other intel methods.

It doesn’t make sense that like A, he would be able to do that, and especially doesn’t make sense if he’s claiming to do that work currently with the-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: with the military. Like they wouldn’t l- people wouldn’t let him like give out these amazing… And he, and he’s also, uh, you know, claiming or at least implying that like maybe like the New Jersey drones were a PSYOP by the-

military, the government. It’s like you, you think somebody that like is claiming to, uh, currently or, or even in the past do this amazing undercover top secret stuff with the military is gonna tell the public about like, you know, while claiming to be in good standing with that military is gonna tell the, a- and imply that these various things are PSYOPs happening around us by the military?

It’s like none, none of, none of it really makes sense at a basic, uh, logic level. Then you f- add in all the like clear lies and exaggerations he’s told. But anyway, I, yeah, I would… He, I think he, I think he really, uh, misstepped stating that he had a specific, that he, that he was heading to Fort Bragg and- Right.

‘Cause- … obviously I’m waiting to get the official word from, uh, Fort Bragg on that- Mm-hmm … and hopefully they get back to me. But I would- Yeah … bet a large chunk of my, uh, n- net worth that he, he has- Yeah … had nothing official to do with, uh, PSYOPs.

Pat: Yeah, yeah. And, and, and that, and that’s to say, you know, you know, could someone give like a one-off talk to individual service members without everybody in the community knowing?

Sure, that, that could be. Um, that’s theoretically possible. But that’s very different from saying you were training Army PSYOP or implying institutional endorsement. Uh, like- Like, the, the most, the more official expansive the claim, the easier it should be to substantiate. And, uh- Yeah … and, and I just, I have trouble, trouble buying it.

Um, he certainly, he, he has something to sell. Uh, you know, and that, that’s how he makes his… I think he has, like, a university or something of the, of that, that matter. Yeah,

Zach Elwood: NCI, uh, neuro-

Pat: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: whatever, univer- intelligence. Yeah. I

Pat: can’t remember what

Zach Elwood: it stands

Pat: for. And-

Zach Elwood: But, uh, yeah …

Pat: yeah. A- a- a- and, you know, the questions I would ask him, like, if you ever got the opportunity or if anybody watching, you know, ask him what unit, what date, what authority.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, specifics. Yeah.

Pat: Uh, was it a contract, a guest lecture, a private event, a course? Who invited him, right? Um-

Zach Elwood: Yeah. The, the, the, the am- the ambiguous language is a big clue because he and other people who want to deceive use very ambiguous language. So it wouldn’t surprise me if he had something where he was actually going to Fort Bragg, but he was meeting up with a client, like somebody who hired him, who, like, had some Psyop, uh, army past.

Yeah. And so he could phrase it in the sense of like, “I’m going to Fort Bragg to train some Psyops,” or s- you know, some ambiguous usage of it. It’s like, that, and that’s what he does a lot. It’s like- And that, and that’s- … implies something that- Right … has some more mundane thing, right?

Pat: Yeah, that way, that, that way if you call him on, “Well, I never said that.

You interpreted it that way.”

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you would… Yeah, exactly. You know? It’s- Like, “I didn’t say I was gonna actually go-” Yeah … “onto the base and train

Pat: anybody officially.” Yeah.

Zach Elwood: I’m go- “What do you mean?” Yeah.

Pat: I meant down in Fayetteville. And, you know- Yeah … a- and, and so w- and ’cause it’s a small community, uh, we’ve got certain things that, you know, certain lingo that, that tips us off.

So he said Psyop, Psyops divisions. Well, there, there is no Psyop divisions. There hasn’t been since 1945. Um, it, and I don’t even know if they called it it then. Um- A- actually, yes, they did. They had a, a, a psychological warfare division. Um, but we, we’re not organi- or I should say, when I was in, and so far as I know currently, they’re not organized that way.

Um, also saying the word PSYOPs with the S on the end, we don’t say that. In fact, the only ones that say it is the Green Berets when they’re trying to antagonize us, ’cause we have a, we have a, we have a rivalry, uh, going back to 1952. So modern PSYOP, Army PSYOP and Special Forces started together at the Psychological Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg in 1952.

Um, it was later renamed Special Warfare, and it was renamed John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. Um, uh, but a, a brotherly rivalry. Um, so that’s another inside English thing there. Um, but once I heard- Yeah, if you, you- Yeah.

Zach Elwood: They, they, they will just say, “I’m, I do PSYOP.” Is that how, how they would phrase it?

Or what’s the n-

Pat: Yeah, they would say, “I do PSYOP,” or, “I’m a former PSYOPper.” Um, if they’re- I see. Yeah. Okay … if, if they’re, if they’re like a really old-time guy, they might say, “I was a PSYWAR guy,” or, or, uh- Mm. I see … or PSYWARrior. Um, yeah, they, th- that’s, that’s usually a, a big tell-off. Um, and then, uh, I’m kinda like, do I wanna say how they’re or- the units are organized?

‘Cause then he’s gonna correct himself and start saying it that way. Yeah,

Zach Elwood: no, we don’t need to, yeah,

Pat: get into all that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I won’t do that. Yeah. Uh, but I, I, I’ll say, you know, the reason why, why does this matter? You know, people, people representing that they’re somehow affiliated with, with the regiment or the associate veterans and all that is, uh, it matters ’cause PSYOP is already misunderstood.

You know, when people market fantasy versions of military persuasion, it damages public understanding of the field and reflects on the people who actually served in this regiment. It also misleads civilians who are paying, uh, who are paying money or giving trust based on implied military credibility. A- and, you know, uh, I, I don’t know much about his business, but if he’s saying that he was a PSYOPper and he’s, he’s making money through whatever he teaches or sells, that’s very, that’s very wrong.

That would, that would be like if, uh, I taught a survival school and said I was a former Green Beret. That’s just, that’s ethically unsound. Um- Yeah. You know, uh, a- as, as far as like red flags, you know, for let’s say, say there’s just some ways that, “I’m a PSYOP expert, and I’ll teach you, you know, how to read people in less than five minutes.”

Um, you should watch red flags, uh, secret credentials, uh, elite access, uh, unverified training claims, universal promises, uh, theatrical certainty, and, uh, claims that one system lets you read, control, or manipulate anyone.

Zach Elwood: Right. Yeah. Be very skeptical of, like, grand claims about anything. Yeah.

Pat: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pat: Um, you know, uh, or another way to frame it is, like, real expertise, real expertise usually gets Uh, more careful as it gets deeper.

Uh, fake expertise often gets more absolute. Mm. Um, you know, a- and it, it’s, it’s kinda like my time as a, as a maritime archeologist. Like, if you came up with me with a theory of something, I would never say, “No, that’s ridiculous.” I’d go, “Well, okay, well, where, where’s the science take you on that? What’s your evidence?”

You know? I wouldn’t outright say, “You’re wrong.” I would say, uh, “Well, yeah, let me… Give me your evidence and I’ll take a look.” And then I would say, “Well, the preponderance of evidence says this and yours says this, so I gotta…” Uh, Carl Sagan said– what did he say about claims? Like, uh, uh, it’s like great claims require great evidence or something to that effect.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, no, extraordinary claims, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And some extraordinary claims could be true, but you wanna, you wanna d- start out doubting them, yeah.

Pat: Yeah. Yeah. And, and like I said, uh, y- I, I could talk to you forever. I, I know I glossed over a lot of stuff.

I like talking psyops history, too. Like, um, there’s really cool stuff like, uh, Vietnam War. Uh, have you ever heard of the ghost tapes?

Zach Elwood: No

Pat: Okay, so the ghost tapes were, uh, I believe it was like ’66, ’67. Um, the, uh, cybers in Vietnam realized that, uh, certain Vietnamese tribes had different superstitions. And one of the superstitions was that if their loved one, say a Viet Cong, uh, died in the jungle, their soul would be cursed to wander the jungle forever ’cause they’re away from their family.

Or they’re, they’re, those days they’re very family-oriented. So the Psyopers, and this is a time when, uh, reel-to-reel tape, all that’s still pretty rare. They got this disjointed tape, uh, and they made it sound like a Vietnamese man that’s trapped in hell. And, uh, they had the echo and all that stuff, and he’s like, “Please help me.

I’ve died in the jungle. Where’s my family?” And, and all this sort of thing. And they would have kind of spooky Halloween stuff going on in the background. And initially, it absolutely terrified the Viet Cong and, and Vietnam, North Vietnamese Army. It was so bad that according to legend, uh, they had to take headphones and place them on the South Vietnamese soldiers ’cause they forgot to do it and the guys defected.

It was effective, but in typical army fashion, the army finds, you know, you hit the green button and the thing works, they push it over and over again. And PSYOP is a game of finesse. So, um, that would be, like, where you, you, you could go into the, you know, we’re playing tricks a bit. Um, but again, what were we doing there?

If we got the Viet, the, the, the Viet Cong to surrender, we didn’t have to kill them. Right. If they went back to their family, a, an infantry platoon doesn’t shoot them. Right. You know? So we’re, we’re mitigating death. Um, but yeah, you can actually go on YouTube and look up, uh, Vietnam, uh, Vietnam ghost tapes, and it should come up.

And then there was like a Omleto or something. I, I, uh, I think it’s called Omleto, uh, ghost tapes. And it, they did like a short horror movie, which, uh, Sergeant Major Herb Friedman, a PSYOP warrior, helped make. It’s, it’s, it’s really well done. Uh, so you have stuff like that. Um- Yeah … you have, uh- So many,

Zach Elwood: yeah, so many interesting things to talk about.

Uh, I know it’s a wide space. Yeah.

Pat: Y- yeah. I, I mean, you could go back to, uh, PSYOP is in the Bible. PSYOP is in the ancient Greek stories. Of course, folks are probably excited about the Odyssey’s coming out. Um, that’s an early example of psychological warfare or operations with the Trojan Horse, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pat: I mean- Uh, Odysseus had to have the foreknowledge of what were the religious customs of the Trojans and then use that, uh, to, or weaponize that against themselves. Uh, in, in the Bible you have Gideon and, um, how, uh, he used his, uh, concealed his forces, uh, with, uh, uh, torches and clay pots and I think they broke something and they made their numbers appear bigger than they really were, right?

Zach: Mm.

Pat: Um, so that it goes back to that. It goes back to Genghis Khan and his heralds. Like today we think Genghis Khan is one of the worst Worst guys ever, right? Or, or, you know, legendary warlord. And he would get people to surrender before his army even got there. Um, he would send heralds out, which would spread the rumor of his greatness and the ferocity of things he did, right?

And they would highlight the things he really did do and magnify it. And, uh, he would make his numbers look larger than they really were. He would connect, uh, I think it was like a rake or something to the tails of his, his men’s horses to create the clouds, which makes it look like, well- Oh … if I thought that was 50 horses, now I think there’s 100 horses out

Zach Elwood: here.

Pat: Yeah. You know?

Zach Elwood: Messing with the… Yeah, messing with your opponent’s mind has been a part of all throughout human history, yeah.

Pat: Right. It’s, it’s, it’s an old art, and if you look at the old articles on PSYOP, they, they talk about these things when they were explaining what it was that, that, that, uh, uh, PSYOP does.

It’s ultimately, it’s, it’s a force multiplier. Um, believe me, they, they do not have the wasta to do mind control. That’s, that’s just, that’s just not a thing. Uh, I, I’m not saying that that’s not something that like cults and sort of stuff, that they do- Sure … mind con- certainly they do. Yeah. I mean, um, but- It’s just

Zach Elwood: part of persuasion, yeah.

And, uh, and for people curious, I have a whole episode on like digging into the MKUltra thing if you’re curious, if people are curious about the brainwashing and the mind control aspect, yeah. This has been great, Pat. Uh, I, I wanna thank you for coming on and, and thank you for your service.

Pat: Y- yeah. Well, thank you, sir.

And, and thank you for, for, for giving me your time, and I hope, you know, more of, of the craft comes on. There, there’s guys way more interesting that did way cooler stuff than I ever got to do that, that I, I’m sure would like to be on. And I guess like I, I’d say probably in closing, like, uh, the, the main thing I’d, I’d want people to take away is that PSYOP’s a real profession with a real history, real limits, and real ethical and legal boundaries.

Um, it’s, uh, it’s not mind control. It’s not a secret superpower. Uh, most real influence work is less cinematic than people, you know, they wanna imagine. Um, it’s about credibility, audience context, uh, timing, um, and whether the message re- matches reality. And I’d say the problem is that when serious people do not explain the field, the vacuum gets filled with conspiracy theorists, entertainers, and people selling secret military, uh, persis- persuasion systems that…

And that hurts the public understanding Uh, I think it also reflects unfairly on the people who actually serve in the regiment and did the work, um, who in my, my, my book are some of the most intelligent folks in the United States military a- and some of the most ethically sound. Uh, so like I guess I, to wrap it up, I, I’d say my, my advice to listeners is simple.

When someone trades on military intelligence, PSYOP interrogation or spec ops credibility, ask for the specifics. What unit, what role, what dates, what training, what evidence? What exactly are they claiming? Real expertise has boundaries. Honest people will tell you who, where those boundaries are.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Great tip. Get specific.

Pat: Yeah. A- and, uh, I’m all about like preserving the, the actual history and the professional reality of the job, right? And not make it sound mysterious. You know, I’d ra- I’d rather make it less mysterious and more accurate and harder for people to exploit. Uh, I, I, I th- so I, I thank you.

I, I do thank you for your time.

Zach Elwood: That was a talk with Pat, a former Army PSYOP soldier. I’m Zach Ellwood, and this has been the People Who Read People podcast. You can learn more about this show at behavior-podcast.com. Please consider subscribing and sharing this on social media. Thanks.

Categories
podcast

AI text-analysis algorithms beat humans at detecting deception

Can machines spot a lie better than we can? I talk with psychology researcher Bennett Kleinberg, whose work brings together psychology, machine learning, natural-language processing, and deception detection. We explore why humans are bad at spotting lies, which statement clues might point to deception—and why indicators of anxiety are bad clues to deception. Bennett explains how liars use detail and how the level of detail can be a clue to deception, the fact that deception usually involves a good amount of truth in the mix and what that means, and what happens when human judgment is combined with AI. We also discuss the risks of the mysterious black-box nature of some machine learning systems, and how smarter, research-informed interviewing techniques could transform criminal investigations.

Episode links:

A summary of some key takeaways from this episode:

  • Humans detect lies only slightly better than chance, while text-based machine-learning systems have reached 70–80% accuracy in controlled studies.
  • Deception detection can be theory-driven—measuring cues such as detail and plausibility—or data-driven, using complex language representations that may be difficult to interpret.
  • The “black box” aspect of machine learning algorithms is especially serious in legal settings, where consequential decisions must be transparent and explainable.
  • Detail can reverse meaning depending on the task: truth-tellers described past events more specifically, but liars sometimes gave more detail about future plans because they had prepared convincing scripts.
  • Verifiable details—names, times, locations, and records—can be more revealing than detail alone. Liars often provide details but it will often be deliberately uncheckable information.
  • Signals of stress and anxiety are poor proxies for lying: truthful people may be stressed, while some liars can remain calm.
  • Combining human judgment with AI is unexpectedly difficult. In one experiment, people given full authority to revise a 75%-accurate algorithm reduced their judgment to chance levels. 
  • Real-world lies are usually embedded within truthful accounts rather than being complete fabrications. This has implications for how to study deception. 
  • Kleinberg’s new research explores reinforcement-learning assistants for investigative interviews: systems that could suggest follow-ups, flag improper questions, reduce coercion, and potentially discover effective interviewing strategies humans have not considered.

Resources mentioned in or related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts are generated automatically and will contain errors)

Bennett Kleinberg: We know that if you instruct humans naively to make a judgment about whether someone is, is lying or is telling the truth, right?… they typically perform around the chance level…. Machine learning models can do this above the chance level…. The range… is, let’s say, between 70 and 80%… Now, we then gave them the chance to completely overrule this. So we said, “Okay, this is what the machine learning judgment is. You can now do what- with it whatever you want.” In the case where they had full authority to overrule it, humans brought the originally 75% accuracy back to the chance level. 

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with psychology researcher Bennett Kleinberg, who has done some very interesting research on using computational methods to detect deception. My name is Zach Elwood, and I’m the host of the People Who Read People podcast, which you can learn more about at behavior-podcast.com. I’m also known for my work on reading poker tells; my books have been translated into seven languages and sold more than 48,000 copies. You can learn more about that by going to readingpokertells.com.  

I’ve been working on a new book about reading behavior for general audiences, which will be called Read People For Real. Part of the goals of that book is to educate people about the immense amount of bullshit and nonsense and persistent myths in the nonverbal behavior space. For example, it’s a persistent myth that nonverbal communication makes up the bulk of communication, which is just obviously false and rather silly if you think about it for a bit. When people have asked me about recommendations for books on reading nonverbal behavior in the real world, apart from games and sports, I’ve basically told them that focusing on that is a waste of time; they should instead learn about interpreting written and verbal statements. There is just so much information in what people say, compared to their small nonverbal movements, which can vary hugely in meaning, especially in high-stakes and stressful environments where many people are capable of feeling anxious. But people seldom focus on improving their ability to parse and interpret what people say; I think because reading nonverbal behavior is perceived as a sexier, more exciting idea. So in my book, I’m going to talk about the importance of interpreting statements and making logical deductions of what people say. 

As I was doing some research on linguistic clues to deception, I stumbled across Bennett Kleinberg’s work. To give you a sense of how interesting his work is, I’ll mention the titles of some research papers he’s been involved with: 

  • Examining embedded lies through computational text analysis
  • Detecting deceptive communication through linguistic concreteness
  • Using the verifiability of details as a test of deception
  • How human judgment impairs automated deception detection performance

These were very interesting ideas, and we’ll touch on these and other topics in this talk. We’ll also talk about a fundamental question that underlies so much deception detection work: when is information that is far from 100% accurate actually useful? Put another way: in what scenarios can a clue be acted on? Because clearly you’re not going to judge someone as guilty and punish them based on a clue, based on imperfect information. But there are some scenarios where clues are useful. 

A little more about Bennett: 

He’s Professor of Computational Methods for Psychological Research at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, where he leads the Computational Psychology & Computational Methods Lab and studies human behaviour as complex, high-dimensional data derived from language and digital traces. His work brings together experimental psychology, natural language processing, and machine learning. He is also one of the principal investigators on JUSTICE, a €10.4 million ERC Synergy Grant that connects psychological science, neuroscience, law, and computational methods to develop evidence-based, human-rights-compliant alternatives to coercive interviewing. Across his research, Bennett explores how computational methods can help us better understand the wicked problems about human behaviour such as deception.

You can learn more about his work at bkleinberg.net. That’s B KLEINBERG. 

If you’re interested in better understanding the people around you, and maybe getting clues to when they’re trying to deceive you, I think you’ll really like this episode. I found it highly educational myself. And just a note that this episode is available with video on the People Who Read People youtube channel 

Okay here’s the talk with Bennett Kleinberg. 

Zach Elwood: Hi, Bennett. Thanks for joining me.

Bennett Kleinberg: Thanks for having me, Zach.

Zach Elwood: So in the, uh, in the space of interpreting and understanding behavior, whether text-based or non-verbal or, or whatever, are… What, what stands out to you as some of the most interesting things that you’ve worked on over the years?

Bennett Kleinberg: Um, I’d, I’d say most interesting w- work is really the connection of, let’s say broadly computational approaches to studying human behavior.

So think of using machine b- uh, machine learning to build, for example, predictive models that learn from, from data, uh, that you can then map to, um, to behavior. Uh, as well as, um, and these two are o- often connected, uh, the use of natural language processing. So some of the technologies that are now under- underpinning what we know with ChatGPT and these generative language models.

Um, but really this i- idea of using complex, unstructured textual data, um, to change how we study human behavior or approach psychological research problems really. And, and we’ve applied this in various contexts, including, including deception, um, uh, work. But that’s really the, an exciting field to be in at the moment, this connection between computational, uh, methods and then applied for questions that, uh, originate from psychological behavioral research.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. And what stands out to you as, uh, some of the most interesting findings, whether it’s yours or, or other people’s?

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. So in, in the space of deception, uh, research, for example, one of the, one of the findings that we have found in, in several studies, uh, a- and other colleagues have found as well, is that…

So we know that if you instruct humans naively to make a judgment about whether someone is, is lying or is telling the truth, right? So for example, if you provide them with a transcript of a, a statement that has been made, uh, and we know some people are lying, we know some people are telling the truth.

Now, if you instruct humans to make that decision, they typically perform around the chance level. Mm-hmm. All right? So this is not an isolated finding. This is, this is a, a very common, very established finding actually. We find this even in meta-analytical research that humans are about slightly above, but not meaningfully above the chance level.

Zach Elwood: Which is, uh- Now, if- … which is similar to, uh, similar to the… Has, has a map over to people trying to u- interpret nonverbal behavior too, where there’s like a slightly- Yeah … above chance ability to detect deception. Yeah. E-

Bennett Kleinberg: exactly. Exactly. And, and, and now what, what is really interesting, and this i- is, is the work that, that we, w- we have worked a lot on, is if you now say, okay, well, so deception is incredibly complex.

I would say actually deception is probably one of these wicked problems in, in psychology because it is Everywhere, right? Uh, our, our life is, um, is, is not full of deception, but deception plays a big role in our lives. Like, all l- legal settings have to do somehow with deception. Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Bennett Kleinberg: But, um, it’s incredibly difficult for humans, um, uh, to, to make- Yeah

deception judgment. So what we, what we do is we say, “Okay, what if we use techniques, uh, that you would now call are part of, let’s say, artificial intelligence, essentially using, um, machine learning to deal with an in- increasing amount of information that we have, and using natural language processing to obtain these numerical representations of concepts?

So could we train, essentially, models to make this deception judgment?” And what we typically find is that machine learning models can do this above the chance level. Um, the range, we are currently, uh, finalizing a big, uh, overview work on this, but the, the range of, um, a- a- accuracy that you have to think about is, is, let’s say, between 70 and 80%.

So we’re, we’re not at all in the 90s, right? It’s absolutely not, and I do not think this will, this will happen, uh, i- in the foreseeable future. But we see that these approaches where you rely entirely on automated methods can do this above the chance level. So they do outperform human judges consistently, and that’s, that’s very exciting, uh, and also brings with it a lot of, uh, like, new opportunities to, to think about this problem.

Zach Elwood: And what are the, um, what are some of the patterns that are being detected by the algorithms?

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. So we, you kind of principle approaches from two ways. So one is you do what you could call a top-down a- a- approach. The top-down approach would be that you look at theory and, and, uh, uh, start from there and say, “Okay, well, we, we know there are some theories of how deception works,” right?

Of course, theories are never perfect, right? But some theories, for example, say, okay, someone that is telling the truth should, through having genuinely experienced an event, let’s say whatever … Let’s say what I did last weekend, right? So if I have genuinely experienced this, so I’m telling you the truth about this, then I should be able to talk about that event and recall that event from memory with much more detail, with much, much more perceptual information, with much, much more contextual information.

So I should be able to tell you, uh, what did it smell like there? What did it look like? Who else was there? What was the arrangement of the room that you were in? Like, all these pieces of information. Whereas someone who may, who f- fabricates this, um, essentially makes this up and lies about this, so tries to convey the same thing that happened to them or that, that they did, they will typically struggle with this because they, of course, have this dual task of maintaining a consistent story that they want you to believe, right, whilst not contradicting themselves.

So they have this increased, what we call increased cognitive load, right? And that increased cognitive load then, according to some theories, manifests itself in differences in indicators such as the amount of detail or the plausibility of your story. So in the top-down approach, using computational approaches, you could say, okay, let’s find ways to automatically measure the detailedness.

Let’s say we find some, uh, rules in, in text, and we say, okay, whenever someone mentions, uh, specific individuals or addresses or references of time or, uh, any of these sort of highly specific pieces of information, then we count this as detail. So we measure this automatically, can do this fairly reliably, and of course, this also n- not, um, not something we should forget, you can scale this up, right?

So once you’ve done this automatically for 10 individuals, you can also do this for, for a million in, in, in principle. Um, and then say, okay, we start from these theoretically informed cues. So that is one way to do this. This is top-down. We start from theory and find ways to operationalize or computationally measure these cues.

The other approach is that we say, well, we know that in behavioral research, uh, or psy- psychological research specifically We struggle with what, what others have called weak theories. So not all theories are very strong. Like we do not have theories in, in psychological research, same as colleagues in physics, um, have theories about the world.

So that means some would say, “Well, these theories are often not that great, so what if we just say we use a completely data-driven approach?” So we let essentially, um, computational methods and algorithms figure out what it is in a piece of text, for example, in a transcript of a conversation or in a statement, uh, that was provided, and we let it figure out by itself, without ever telling it what to look for, what could be meaningful pieces of information, and essentially make use of this from a very traditional machine learning approach So these are these two approaches Is that,

Zach Elwood: is that like deep, is that what’s called like deep machine learning kind of, uh, neural network kind of thing for that second one you’re talking about?

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah, so that, that’s related, right? So it’s, it’s not, it’s not the same as deep learning, but deep learning then often comes into play, right? So think about it like this. So you have the text that you start with, let’s say a transcript, and the bottom-up or data-driven approach would be that you first go

This is very important, and that’s, in a way, also the holy grail of natural language processing. You take the step from text or textual information to a numerical representation of the text, right? Because whenever you want to work with machine learning or with statistical modeling, you need that numerical representation.

Now, since, let’s say, the, the past, uh, 20 years, we’ve seen really landmark advances in, in natural language processing, right? And these, these are also enabling now these generative language models, and that means we have quite sophisticated ways of representing text numerically, and typically we, we think of vector representations.

Now, that essentially means from a input, from an input text, you arrive at a representation of 300, 400, sometimes thousands of numerical values. These values are often non-interpretable. That’s also a big challenge. We cannot make sense of them. But we can provide these to, uh, a machine learning model that learns to use this and essentially give it the task, “Well, here’s a vector.

I tell you now this is truthful or deceptive.” We do this a couple of thousands of times, and then I test how good this model is, uh, able to make the prediction on data it has never seen. And then often because you then deal with these vectors, then often what you use to make the decision or the algorithm you use to train is often, uh, what you would call deep learning, right?

So these are neural networks that are then used. But in principle, you could also do this with other models or other algorithms, but n- neural networks are typically the ones that perform, uh, very well.

Zach Elwood: So is that, is that the area where there’s can be like a sort of a black box thing where it’s able to make predictive, uh, you know, pretty reliable, significant predictions, but you may not know what it’s actually finding, right?

And then you have to try to, maybe you try to figure out after the fact what it’s actually focusing on. Am I, am I getting that right?

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah, absolutely. And that’s, that is actually a, a, a big challenge and also a- an area that, that I find concerning because we, we sh- we shouldn’t forget it’s … Like, it’s, it’s one thing if you make a decision about, let’s say, someone, um, or, or say a company wants to do a, a, another verification before you purchase a product or any of these things where you say, “Yeah, that’s

It’s annoying,” right? But it’s not … Like, y- your life doesn’t depend on this, right? So it, annoyance is, is, is, uh, as, as, as bad as it gets. But in legal settings, we, we do not have the, the, uh, this, uh, position where we can say, “Well, it doesn’t really matter,” right? These are people’s lives, so this, this ha- Right.

This is, this is as high stakes as you can get, right? If you, if you have, if you’re on a, in a court of law. Yeah. And we, we also know w- we have these frameworks in place. So for example, in the, in the European Union, we have the, uh, AI Act, which, which dictates that whenever you use these automated approaches, well, you should be able to explain how decisions were made.

And that, um, I mean, it depends exactly on how this will come into effect, because this is very recent that this has been, um, been passed, but that essentially means all these- methods that we know are very powerful in making predictions, but are at the same time not interpretable, so we, we can’t– So even if we could look inside them, so even if we say, “Well, we have some insight into the black box,” we couldn’t make sense of it, right?

And that means we have these, these challenges of having powerful methods, and then being faced with the dilemma, well, but we can’t use them-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Bennett Kleinberg: because we are not able to explain them. And I think that is actually good that we’re very cautious there, because we, we do know that machine learning a- approaches are very powerful.

They have changed the world with what we now see, for example, with generative language models. E- everyone, uh, is or has used models like ChatGPT. But at the same time, we also know they are very prone to, to errors. And really in this re– high-stakes cases, uh, such as legal settings, I think it’s desirable to have full insight of how decisions were made.

Zach Elwood: Are there, um, are there patterns that the machine learning algorithms have found that have been discovered that weren’t known before? Is that possible to say in that area in terms of language patterns?

Bennett Kleinberg: So, um, this, uh, th- this depends on the approach you take when you use machine learning for deception, for example, right?

So if y- if you use this, this top-down approach, then you essentially already saying, “Okay, these are the variables to use,” right? So then you will not find something you have not thought about because you directly dictate which information it should use. Now, if you use this bottom-up approach, then if you use these complex embeddings representations, right, then even, even if we say, well, okay, it uses certain vector positions in this textual representation, that doesn’t tell us anything because they, they are not interpretable, right?

But there is this sort of area in between where you could say, okay, we use– what if we use, um, variables that do not, do not directly come out from theory but are more interpretable. So for example, what if we use these psycholinguistic dictionaries where we say, okay, we, we have, uh, categories that measure cognitive processes and analytical thinking, uh, and references to family and references to friends.

Positive and

Zach Elwood: negative words, these

Bennett Kleinberg: kinds of- Ex- exactly … various categories. Yeah. Exactly. There, there, there are many of these. And then you could say, “Well, I’ll, I’ll throw them into a system now and see which ones have the most w- w- what you would call discriminatory value in, in statistical sense,” right? So which are, uh– which allow you to disentangle truth from deceptive.

Um, and what we have learned from doing this systematically on large scale on diverse data sets is not so much that we have identified linguistic cues that no one has ever thought about. But what we have seen is that we have great contextual variation in which cues are relevant. So that means we do not find consistently that there are some cues that are always indicative or, or, or related to truthfulness, and others are always related to deceptiveness.

And that is a, a big challenge, right? So that means, yes, so within a context, we could, uh, find patterns that are, that are useful, but these do not generalize across context. And, and that of course means that you essentially have to develop these approaches always within context, but can never have this one model that detects deception.

So, so to give you an example.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Bennett Kleinberg: One, o- one, um, uh, area of work we have worked on is this, uh, move from detecting deception about past events, so what you’ve done last weekend, towards detect- the detection of deceptive intentions. And because of course for all, let’s say, um, security related, uh, purposes, p- people are often very concerned about, “Yeah, I’m interested in what is this individual going to do.

Are they, are they coming, are they traveling because they want to visit a museum, or are they traveling for other purposes?” Yeah, visa.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, visa checking- Exactly … kind of interviews, yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Exactly. And so this is always typically a- about the future. And what you then see, we’ve sort of created the experiments, have created groups of individuals that either talk about something happened in the past or talk about something that happens in the future, and then we had groups of truth-tellers and, and liars in both settings.

And then we see that there are some- Cues. So for example, the, the detailedness of information, right, which we have measured through the, uh, uh, number of references to specific individuals, to places, to times. So let’s say hi- highly specific information, right? Now we then see if you do this on past events, then yeah, what theory predicts, uh, was also the case.

So truth tellers use more of these details than, than liars. Okay, so far so good. Now, if you then look at does this also, uh, w- play out the same way when people either tell the truth or lie about what they will do in the future, then we see the exact opposite. So then we see that it is liars that use more of these specific pieces of information.

And one, this is still a, a working hypothesis, one working explanation could be that liars simply think, “Oh, I have to come with a lot of things, specific information of what I’m about to do, because otherwise you’re not gonna believe me.” Whereas a truth teller will say, “Well, yeah, I’m, I’m traveling to London.

I don’t really know exactly what I will do when. I have a vague idea.” And the truth teller– uh, the liar is coming with a script of saying, “Yeah, first I will do this, then I’ll go there, then I’ll be there for two hours.” Whereas the truth teller doesn’t have this. So this is something where you see this interaction really where it goes the opposite way depending on context.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. It seems like as with all behavior analysis or interpretation, the domain, the context is so important. Like, yeah, there’s, there’s huge categories of difference in different interactions and, like, there’s a difference between saying something on your own and being prompted to say it or asked to say it.

Yeah, there’s just all these interesting category differences. Uh, I’m curious, uh, getting back to the specific patterns, I know one of the things you had written about for a paper or maybe more than one paper was the pattern where, uh, truth tellers are more likely to say details that can be verified. For example- Mm-hmm

tell someone’s specific name that might be able to verify it or, you know, just in general say things that could more easily be checked. I’m curious. Yeah, and that, that gets into the realm of details too, but it’s also, like, verifiable, more easily verifiable details versus, like, ambiguous details that can’t be really verified by anyone.

I’m curious, is that, is that one of the major things that’s being aspired to, or is that maybe just one of many?

Bennett Kleinberg: So no, no. This is certainly in the, in this area of what you could broadly call verbal deception detection, ri- where, where we– which is domain really we, we work in, where you have textual data typically as, as a starting point.

Um, in that area of verbal deception detection, the, the, this verifiability approach that has been proposed some bit more than 10 years ago now by, by colleagues, um, is, is a very prominent one. Uh, because th- they, they could show in a series of studies that- If you, if you only look at the detailedness, so you, you– There are various ways in which people, how people count, uh, uh, detail, and this varies greatly between research groups.

But, um, they show, okay, if you just count the details, you only get so far. But if you add this additional layer of, of coding or of, of, um, differentiating between details into verifiable and non-verifiable details, then you actually, actually magnify this difference in this detailedness on the verifiability domain, uh, between truth-tellers and, and liars.

Simply because the, the truth-teller should, according to that approach, not have any issue with coming up with verifiable information, right? Because the moment you tell them, “Well, actually, I’m looking for verifiable information. What can you tell me?” Then they say, “Oh, look. Oh, I had this interview with that…

with, with Zach. Um, this was at, uh, 9:00 AM. Um, we spoke via this app.” What, like, all this information, right? Where I say, “Fine. Okay, I can actually check this,” right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Whereas, whereas the liar can’t do this, right? The liar… And, and, and we also know that l- liars are aware of this. So if you ask what, what are the strategies, and li- liars are aware of this, that they can only bluff so far, right?

So they– The moment I say, “Oh, I had this interview with, with, with Zach,” and that interview never happened, right? So they essentially, someone contacts Zach and says, “Well, okay, fine.” Like, never happened. So that’s the end of the story. So what liars do instead is they resort to these unverifiable details, right?

So they might say, “Yeah, I had an interview with someone, and this, it was in a very nice location.” Like these kind of things, and try to get away with this because they are aware. That’s very interesting. They are aware that they need to use details. Mm-hmm. So if you ask liars, uh, “Well, how do you lie?” They say, “I, I want to be convincing, so I need to use some detail, but I can’t give, give any concrete names or phone numbers because then someone checks, and that’s, that’s the end of the story.”

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I’m reminded of, uh, the, uh, the Casey Anthony case where she was lying to the police about having this specific job and, uh, it went so far as the police actually went to this job site with her and wandered around and until she finally was like, “Yeah, I don’t actually work here.” It was just this weird, weird string of, uh- Yeah

lies. But, uh, I’m, I’m curious. Uh, are there other patterns that come to mind or is, are deta- or analyzing details in various ways one of the major ways, or are there other major patterns that come to mind in this area?

Bennett Kleinberg: I mean, so, so detail is certainly, uh, one of the, one of the most prominent ones that, that also emerged from, um, large scale meta-analytical work, uh, where hundreds of cues to deception were examined.

Um, you also have some, some cues that are relevant for the verbal domain, such as the plausibility o-o-of a statement, whether there are any, any contradictions, uh, in your statement, right? Um, you also have those that then go a bit out of the solely verbal domain, um, where you then talk about, let’s say, statement evidence inconsistency, right?

But that of course means you have some evidence.

Zach Elwood: Oh, right.

Bennett Kleinberg: Right? You’re comparing

Zach Elwood: it to something else outside of

Bennett Kleinberg: the statements. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. And there’s a whole, there’s a, there are whole sub-disciplines in, in legal psychological research where you look at, okay, what are strategic ways to reveal evidence?

So if you, if you as an in- interviewer have some information, when should you ideally share it with someone to then test, okay, do they actually contradict themselves towards something that I know but they don’t, do not yet know whether I have this? But this of course also depends on the, on the legal frameworks that you operate in, right?

Because there’s difference between countries to what extent you can withhold information that you have as evidence, uh, or, or not. But this is an active area of research, not so much something that we work on, but there are others that work on, on exactly this statement evidence, uh, uh, inconsistency.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Bennett Kleinberg: And then of course you have, um, uh, a whole other area that is outside of the verbal domain, which is in the non- non-verbal, uh, area of deception research. Uh, but we don’t, we don’t really w- w- work on this. There is some interesting work coming from the multimodal, um, work. So that is also relying on computational approaches, also relying on machine learning, but comes then with the idea, okay, what if we now take this idea further that there is a lot of information humans…

For humans it’s an incredibly difficult task making deception judgments. Um, but computational systems are able to deal with a lot of information, right? They’re also able to integrate them, uh, if, if you have high dimensional data, so lots of, let’s say, thousands of variables. And what if we say, okay, we use textual information, we use information, um, uh, about, uh, a- about what, what, what’s, how someone is, is talking, about how someone is moving, et cetera, like, et cetera.

Now, it’s important to say about this, so the findings in that area have been, um, have, have not shown yet that this supersedes the solely verbal approach. And there’s also- A good theoretical explanation for this, uh, and that is that the much of the non-verbal, uh, approaches to deception detection originate from, from a stress-based paradigm.

And s- the stress-based paradigm essentially says that there are some indicators, um, that very reliably measure stress, right? So sweating, moving a lot, like a- a- all the, the, uh, mainly, and they are- Self, self-soothing

Zach Elwood: or whatever, yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Exa- And, and they, they are, they are great predictors of stress.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Bennett Kleinberg: Right?

But the problem is you … Not everyone that is lying is stressed, right? And- Right.

Zach Elwood: In, in high stakes scenarios, many people are, are stressed, yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Exactly. So I, I … An example that I always, always use, uh, when I also speak to practitioners about this is, let’s say you are in an airport security setting, right?

And, and if you then rely on indicators that actually are indicators of stress, and you use them as a proxy for deception, then you will have people rushing to the gate. They are stressed, they are nervous, right? People that are f- that, that don’t like flying. Like, there are so many reasons you can be stressed.

Yeah. But these are not necessarily lying, uh, people that are lying. And vice versa, you also have people that are very good at lying, but they are not stressed.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Bennett Kleinberg: Right? So, and, and this verbal, uh, approach is much closer connected to the, to, to, to another paradigm. So this is not the stress-based paradigm then, but it’s the cognitive paradigm.

And the cognitive paradigm essentially starts with a very simple, uh, assumption, and that is that telling the truth is simpler than lying. The liar always has this additional cognitive load, and that difference in cognitive load, that should manifest itself in some, uh, verbal indicators. That is i- in one sense, the idea behind the cognitive paradigm.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. And I know the cognitive load thing is, you know, pe- people disagree with that. I’ve seen, you know, there’s, there’s various thoughts on that. But even leaving that aside, it’s like The fundamental fact is, like, there’s just much more information and actual communication than there is in, uh, you know, non-verbal, for example.

There’s like- Mm … people are, people are actually trying to communicate something, and sometimes you can find clues into how they, based on how they communicate, you know, they, i- including, like, is someone a- actually answering the question or, or they’re not. You know, it’s like these, there’s major clues. So even, even leaving aside the, the cognitive load thing, it’s like- Yeah

there’s just so much more information in, in words than there is in the non-verbal stuff, which is something I often talk about on this podcast. Um-

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah, yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Um, yeah, I think, uh, you mentioned this, uh, briefly. It’s a, it’s a very good point. It’s something that I think I’ve oft- I often think about recently.

Uh, but I, it, it seems to me like hugely unexamined, at least from what I’ve seen, is the basic underlying question of like, when is having information, uh, that is far from 100% reliable, when is that actually useful? Because all of this kind of deception detection stuff, the underlying question is we know almost all of it is, you know, uh, pretty much all of it’s gonna be pretty, pretty significantly far from 100%.

So the question is, when are the instances when you can actually use this? Like you said, you wouldn’t be using it to determine guilt or, like, change someone’s- Mm-hmm … life. But you might use it, like a company might use it to remove, uh, you know, Amazon might use it to remove a, a review or maybe in a visa interview, which we know are, you know, hugely quick and unfair to begin with, like n- uh, at a ne- in a necessary way.

They have- Mm … to be unfair at some level. So it’s like using some clues might be justifiable to deny or accept. Uh, so b- but I guess the underlying question which I, I rarely see talked about is like, well, when can you use these things that are like anywhere from 51% to, you know, 90, 90, 99%, uh, it known to be reliable?

And I, I’m curious if you have any thoughts on that.

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. Yeah, so that is in a way spot on, on the Achilles heel o- of this, uh, this kind of work. Um, because w- whenever you talk to someone w- from practice, whether it’s, uh, judges or, or people i- involved in, let’s say, l- l- legal settings in the widest sense, right?

They would say, “Yeah, but come on. It’s not good we’re gonna use something that is 70 or ei- 80, uh, even 90% acc- like, that doesn’t work.” Like- Yeah … y- there’s no chance you, you- Not for

Zach Elwood: life-changing stuff that you could be sued for, you know-

Bennett Kleinberg: Exactly … by,

Zach Elwood: by using it. Yeah, yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Exactly. So I, I think that there are two, two important perspectives here, right?

So one is that- So there is this, this decision That, that we have to make i- i- in society what kind of judgment, what kind of decision-making approach are we comfortable with? Because if we say, okay, it is about determining, um, whether someone is, is telling the truth or not. So in a classical sense where you have this, this verbal credibility assessment approach.

So let’s say case, you don’t have evidence, right? So you have one statement and another statement, and you say, “Okay, this person says this, the other person says this happened, and now you need to decide,” right? There, there are plenty of, of, of examples of this.

Zach Elwood: Right, the he said, she said kind of like there’s no evidence.

Yeah. It’s just two people- Exactly … that claim two different things. Yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Exactly. Exactly. So in these settings where we say, “Okay, we do not have any evidence,” then as it is now, that decision, which is essentially a deception judgment, is made by, by humans, right? And we know that humans aren’t really good at this.

So, right, so there you can say, well, it’s also kind of odd that we leave this to humans where we know the evidence points to, well, it’s more chance level, whereas we would have other approaches that could potentially be above, above the chance level, right? Depending on- And, and

Zach Elwood: as your, and as your work has shown, humans can, can be much worse than the algorithms can be on this textual analysis.

Yeah. So

Bennett Kleinberg: exactly, right? So, so that, that is, that is one thing. But of course we can also say, well, we are more comfortable with, with judgment mistakes when they’re made by humans than when- Right … they are made by machines, right? That’s I think absolutely fine, right? We have the same with, with self-driving cars, right?

That we, that we, we, we are much more comfortable, i- i- ironically, of having, with having, um, humans make, uh, errors in, in, in traffic, often with, with very, very, uh, severe consequences than having self-driving cars where we know in most settings they are actually safer and they… Right. Right. So, so but, but that is, that is something that just psychological research alone cannot answer, right?

But, um, when it comes to, uh, where would this actually be, be useful? Um, I think, so we have done some work on this and, and I think this is probably the most interesting area of research in, in deception, is how can you combine automated with human judgments? Because, um, I, I, I am, and, and I’m not the only one, there’s evidence for this, that human judgment is of course i- incredible, right?

We are incredibly skilled at incorporating contextual information, right? We are very skilled at making sense of the world, right? Which computational systems cannot, right? So really the, the, the exciting area would be, okay, how can we combine this? On the one hand, large scale processing of information, and on the other hand, very nuanced contextual judgments, right?

How can we combine them? And is there a way, for example, of providing uh, humans some information from, uh, a machine learning system and say, “Well, actually, this is what the machine learning system is.” So you can now adjust this, you can now change this, uh, and you can play around with this. Now, very interesting, uh, interestingly, what we have seen is that if you do this, so if you provide humans the decisions made by a machine learning system, so this machine learning system in that specific study was, uh, w- I think 75% of them had accurate, so certainly above the chance level.

Now, then you give humans the, in an experiment, the chance to interact with this, and there’s three settings. So one setting is they do not see the machine learning judgment, so they just make their own judgment. Surprise, surprise, what you see is they’ve, s- uh, uh, perform at the chance level. But then the really interesting thing happens.

What if you give them the information that the machine learning, the, the machine learning judgment? Now, we then gave them the chance to completely overrule this. So we said, “Okay, this is what the machine learning judgment is. You can now do what- with it whatever you want.” Or we gave them the, the, the chance to only minimally adjust this, so only slightly, uh, move the dial.

Interestingly, in both cases, the humans did not improve it. And even worse, in the case where they had full authority to overrule it, humans brought the originally 75% accuracy back to the chance level. Right? And so, and so that means there’s something in this interaction with, with computational outputs or with AI systems that merits attention, right?

W- in, in more recent work, we have seen that humans are incorrectly going along with highly confident AI judgments. So if you tell them, “Well, here is some AI judgment,” you, you vary the confidence how, with, w- with, with, uh, with which this judgment was made by the AI a- and a few other things, then you see humans incorrectly go along with highly confident, uh, judgments.

So there’s a lot that we do not know about this, right? So it’s, it’s certainly, uh, uh, worthwhile trying to understand How can we make use of the best of both worlds i- in a sense, right? Because we do know both have something to give that the other cannot, uh, cannot give, right? It, it’s, it’s not possible for humans to process the information of millions of documents and say, “Okay, here are the patterns that I’ve recognized.”

That doesn’t work. But similarly, it is, it is illusionary to, to think of computational systems, even the most advanced that we have now, let’s say generative language models, to be able to have such a, a finely attuned contextual understanding of the world than we humans do. So if one manages to combine both, I think then, uh, w- we can make meaningfully progress.

But, um, to come back to your question, these 70 per- 75 to 80% accurate systems, do they have any practical relevance? Um, the closer you come to real- really high stake settings, the more likely the answer is no.

Zach Elwood: Although to your point, you know, the, the, the… It does seem like, it does seem like in complete he said, she said kind of scenarios, a- as long as we understood, uh, you know, as long as a human was making the judgment and they were using actual data to support it, like for example, you know, if you use this algorithm that we know is accurate for, is actually accurate even at a, you know, 75 whatever percent chance, it’s like that’s, that’s something.

And it seems like as long as we understood what data was actually being used, you know, getting back to that black box question, it seems like if you could at least point to like, well, we know these patterns are somewhat, you know, somewhat reliable for predictive abilities- Mm-hmm … it does seem like that’s something.

You know, I, I, uh, if I was in a situation, you know, i- in like a one person said something, another person said another thing, and there was no evidence, you know, and then there was nothing else to go on, I would, I would submit mu- much sooner than I would submit to a polygraph, I would submit to a textual- Yeah

you know, analysis, you know, with human o- oversight and being like, “What patterns are we finding in the, uh, what, what people are saying if there, you know, if there’s nothing else to go on,” right? I guess, uh, I guess that’s what it gets down to is like how much can we say these patterns are actually reliable versus, you know, gameable versus manipulatable, um, by, by people.

But yeah, it’s like it c- I think it comes down to those low information scenarios where there’s not much else to rely on, right?

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah, exactly.

Zach Elwood: Um, yeah. Sorry, just collecting my thoughts for a second. Look at my notes.

Um, do you wanna talk about, uh, is there any, any other work that you’ve done that, that stands out as, uh, as interesting for, in, in these areas that you wanna talk about?

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. So I think there are two, two things that are, um, really interesting and that sort of occupy, um, a lot of my, my work, uh, these days.

Uh, so one is, is related to dis- deception. This, this is the big challenge of embedded lies, and I’ll talk about it in a second. The other is, um, a, a new project that we have where we essentially wanna push the boundaries further of, of investigative interviews, e- especially within this context of coercion that is often still in place.

But, so let me first talk about the issue of embedded lies. Now, we know that lies or, or deception in the, in the real world, right? So how we lie, how humans generally lie outside of, let’s say, experimental settings, is characterized by what we would call embedded deception. So that simply means that when someone lies, they are rarely providing a statement that is 100% false.

Instead, what, what lies, uh, are made up of is there’s a lot of truthful information in there, and then there is deception, so lies about some, some parts of the story, right? And that, of course, makes sense why we do this. We know why humans do this because it is much, much riskier to completely fabricate everything, right, than to say, “Well, actually, I can tell you what I’ve, what I’ve done yesterday, but what I will only lie about what, let’s say, who I had dinner with,” if that is for relevance for the interview, for example, right?

So that means we are- Uh, w- w- or we have to move to a different unit of analysis in, in, in research, and that is unfortunately almost never done in deception research. There are a few exceptions to this. But what this means is we should no longer say, “Okay, we do essentially a statement classification task.”

So essentially say, “Okay, there’s statements that are either truthful or deceptive,” and you just say, “Okay, is this statement deceptive or truthful?” That would work if y- the entire statement or if in- the, the entire lie is, is, is that statement, or the entire truth is that statement. But instead, what we have to do is we have to move to much, much more granular units of analysis within a statement, right?

So let’s say think of sentences within a statement or even smaller, some clauses that, or, or phrases that are, that are in a statement. And this is a thing where, um, computational text analysis can really help because this can help you spot Patterns on a large scale and help us to gain an understanding, well, what is…

Like, how are these, these real-world lies where we know there is deception embedded in a largely truthful statement, w-what are they character– how, how do they characterize? What, what are the properties of them? Do people, for example, embed deception early on in their story? Do they do this later on? Do they do this on specific, uh, pieces of information?

And we have done some work where, for example, we instructed individuals to, um, recall truthfully some, um, uh, cases such as they made an insurance claim, or they were in an accident. Like, a, a, a whole range of, of, of scenarios. They provided the statement, and then we said, “Okay, your task is now to increase the payout of the insurance company, so you need to exaggerate.

So you need to, for example, convince them that it was much, much more dramatically accident.” So then they had this largely truthful statement, and then we, we could see, okay, where are they actually, uh, uh, exaggerating in their claim? So where do they embed the deception in that? And that, that kind of work is very useful to say, “Okay, well, we wanna understand w-w-how does this work?”

And roughly, as a rule of thumb, you could say that two-thirds of, uh, statements where deception is are actually truthful, right? So, uh, it is not the case that these lies are completely 100% lies. That’s never the case. And that is an, an exciting challenge, um, uh, where there’s some, some work going on. And the other is this, um, uh, yeah, it’s this product that has just, just started.

So this is, um, funded by, um, uh, by the European Research Council, and I work on this together with, uh, with four other professors. Uh, with, uh, three other professors, so we’re four in total, sorry. Um, and that is, um, situated against the background of coercive interviewing practices. So also has to do with deception in, in a sense, but is really the idea that we have investigative interviews.

Um, you have, uh, a setting where an interviewer, uh, has an interviewee, um, often a suspect, right? Or witness in, in, in a, in a crime. Um, and then has some goals with that interview. Now, we know in many countries, so this is also a project w-with a global scope. In many countries, this, uh, goal of the i-i-interview is unfortunately often confessional seeking, which is, uh, not the way it should be, right?

It should be truth seeking, and that’s of course where the connection to deception comes into play a lot. Um, but more, more worryingly, we know that the use of coercive practices there is very much present. So at our estimate, a colleague of mine has, has done, uh, work on a global scale in different countries, is that 140 countries in this, in the world still use coercive practices.

Now, reasons for this are diverse, and we will also uncover in this project what they are. So it’s a six-year project, um, and a lot had happened there. But essentially one of the aims is that we, and that’s the, the one that I’m responsible for, is that we want to incorporate what we call hybrid intelligence into investigative interviews.

Because we know do- conducting an investigative interview is ex- ex- extremely cognitively demanding to do this well, right? So typically, if done by the book, takes hours. It’s very, very demanding because you ha- need to have this constant conversation with someone, right? It’s a lot of information elicitation to get the other one to talk.

Like, to do … E- essentially being a good interviewer, right? To get the other person to talk, right? Because you’re interested in obtaining information that could be useful in helping you decide, well, is this person here telling me the truth or, or, or not? And what we are doing is we are, um, uh, positioning this in this wider project against what’s called the Mendez principles.

So these are principles of how investigative interviewing, um is supposed to work according to and in line with human rights. Right? So we say, “Well, people have the right to remain silent. People h- have, uh, you cannot lie to them, uh, when you interview them,” et cetera. The, the Mendes principles are named after Juan Mendes, the UN Rapporteur on, on, on torture, um, uh, a couple of years ago.

A- and, and brought together essentially all the evidence that we know about investigative interviewing and how this is supposed to be done. Um, and what we are now doing is we are now trying to make this last step and bring this into, into practice and say, “Okay, this, we know how it sh- how it should, should work.

How can we make that happen?” And one of the things that we do is to use computational methods and, and combine human intelligence with artificial intelligence through, uh, systems, um, such as reinforcement learning, where essentially we say, “Can we train models through self-play,” so through interviewing other models, always within constraints of, of rules, so there are only certain things you’re allowed to do, so you cannot make up information, you cannot lie, you cannot ask aggressive questions.

Like, all this is incorporated into the system, and then we let one system interact with another system millions, billions of times with the idea that through this self-learning process, or the technique underlying this is called reinforcement learning, so you’re only ever rewarded when it comes closer to obtaining useful information W- and the idea is it will then figure out effective ways of conducting these interviews completely aligned within human rights.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Bennett Kleinberg: Um, and that would be, um, a game changer, and that could be something that would lead us to come back to an earlier question you have asked, could also inform us about something that we have not known before, right? Because this is then where we see computational systems in action and acquiring these skills without us instructing it how to do this, right?

So that’s the whole beauty of reinforcement learning, and that we then might end up, and I think that’s very likely, that we will observe the behavior of these systems and then say, “Oh, so we never thought about this, but this is actually a very good inter- interview strategy, what the system is following here.”

Yeah. And then the next step is incorporate this and give this human investigators and say, “Okay, here’s now the system that you could use as a, a- as an assistance,” right? So you could, you could … I- this would run in parallel. It would … could flag whether there are some, uh, interesting follow-up questions. It would also tell you, “Well, actually what you’ve asked here, that’s not okay, so you shouldn’t do this.”

So that is the … It’s a very large project, but that, that is an area where we really push the boundaries of bringing, let’s say, legal, psychological, uh, research together with, yeah, what you could call the sort of state-of-the-art of, um, of artificial intelligence using these techniques of reinforcement, uh, learning.

So that’s, that’s a very exciting area, and that is where a lot of my work in the next c- couple of years will be.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, it just seems… I mean, I watch a good amount of interrogations on YouTube, and it just seems… I, I, I think I’d be a horrible interrogator because there’s just so many factors and so much information as you go where it’s like, what is the, what is the optimal interviewing interrogation technique and, like, what information am I getting from this person?

There’s like, there’s just… And sometimes when I watch these interviews, you know, you watch some bad ones where it’s like the person is just, like, kind of barging in there and, like- Yeah … doesn’t really seem to have a plan. And it’s like, I, I would just be overcome by the sheer amount of information and all the different routes you could take for the interview.

So having, you know, having some-

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: algorithmic help where it’s like, oh, we know that these processes, these, these approaches work. You know, we… And here’s, and maybe here, here’s also some analysis as you go as to like, you can imagine, like, uh, interrogators and interviewers of the future wearing some sort of, having some sort of live processing where it’s flagging like, “Hey- Mm-hmm

here’s some assistance,” where it’s like these responses aren’t making sense, you know, statistically. Yeah. Maybe delve into that area a little bit more. You know, you can imagine all these, these assistance, uh- Yeah … machine learning assistance things where it’s like, “Hey, maybe you should take this route in the interview process here,” or, “Here are some things that were flagged.”

You know, you can imagine all these kind of, um, dashboards that could help somebody in real time- Exactly … uh, take- Yeah … take better approaches, yeah. Uh-

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. So that’s, the- all that’s very interesting and you, and you can see the practical, yeah, the practical, uh, values of those things- Yeah

for live interrogations, yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. I, I mean, a- absolutely. And, and to, to come back to what you’ve just mentioned, so if you have, um, or if you, if you look at, let’s say, popular media portrayals of interrogations, right? A big problem, and we’ve, we’ve just discussed this at a, at a launch event for this, for this project because we are f- at different universities and this is international collaboration Um, um, we had a podium discussion about this where someone who is, um, responsible for training, um, interviewers at a large international police force has said, “Well, look, i- if, if you would show in, in, in movies or in TV series interviews how they are done by the book, this would be dead boring for, for TV audience,” right?

Yeah, very boring. Yeah,

Zach Elwood: yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Because it takes a long time. H- it takes hours. It’s extremely slow, right? Yeah. It takes … It’s a lot o- it’s like normal conversations, right? So of course the- And they’re, and they’re

Zach Elwood: non-confrontational, so it’s not as exciting, yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Exactly. So if you, if you do this by the book, right, by the book, this is a, a genuinely, uh, nice conversation.

You do a lot of rapport building, right? Because, because the goal is ideally, yeah, I want to know t- are you telling me the truth or not, right? If I go in there and say, “Oh, you’re the bad guy, so I wanna get a confession out of you,” then we … Well, we know very well what this will bring. Yeah, it will bring confessions, but this doesn’t mean that you will have the right person.

Or they’ll, or they’ll just shut up

Zach Elwood: and, or they’ll just shut up and ask for a lawyer immediately or whatever, yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. So, so, and, and so that’s a, that’s a very, um, a very exciting, uh, uh, very exciting, also very challenging project. Um, um, and, uh, um, what, what mo- most exciting about this is, and also challenging, is the interdisciplinary nature of this.

Because for this project we are, um, uh, or we went into this from the beginning of saying, “Well, this is something that not one single discipline can solve alone.” So the, the other, um, colleagues I work with are neuroscientists, um, uh, professors of criminal law, professors in poli- uh, police and criminal investigation.

We have a very diverse, uh, team, uh, there, and together say, “Okay, we have this big problem of these coercive practices, and there are various angles that we need to tackle it from.” So one is, let’s say, the computational methods, that’s mine, and the others will tackle it from their perspective. And then together we hope that there’s this synergy that will allow us to, to solve that problem

Zach Elwood: Yeah, and, and I should say too, we’ve been focusing on criminal, you know, interrogation interview techniques or applications.

But it’s also true that there’s all these different areas where interviewing techniques play a role. Like, you know, interviewing a politician, a journalist interviewing someone, or an investor investigated, uh, in- investors doing corporate analysis and interviewing, uh, you know, CEOs and these kinds of things.

There’s, there’s all these different interview scenarios where, that are kind of high stakes and people are looking for information and, you know, you can imagine applying the same kinds of textual analysis to these spots where it’s like, you know, in, in journalistic spaces, I’m always amazed at how often I see journalists ask a question and then just not get an answer.

Like, somebody avoids an answer and they don’t really, you know, realize that they haven’t really answered the question. They just keep going, you know? It’s like, and maybe that’s purposeful sometimes too, but it does seem often like if people knew some of the clues in textual-

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: analysis, there’d be better interviews, better investigations in general.

Yeah. Right? Yeah.

Bennett Kleinberg: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, ab- absolutely. The, a- and, and the, the f- the fascinating thing about this is that this is now A- a- allowing us to bring these, these computational approaches together for this, this, this research question that have to do with human behavior, right? And that’s of course– I think h- the human behavior is still the most fascinating thing to just, to study.

I think this e- e- every day, uh, when I think about my, my work. But this really, really unique challenge that we have now of bringing these computational methods i- into the mix is w- what, what I find particularly exciting. And, and one thing I always think about that specifically with regard to this reinforcement learning idea a- about investigative interviews, essentially systems learning by themselves how to do this, is if we look at parallels where we already have seen that if you apply this, we will learn something from the behavior of these models or how these models solve the problem that we have not thought of.

And there’s this very g- uh, uh, very fascinating example from colleagues at, um, at DeepMind, uh, who have published work on where they, um, trained through self-play, uh, a system to play chess. But we know, we knew computers could play chess, right? So that’s not, that was not the, the exciting part. But the exciting part was they did this without instruction, so it was only through self-play.

So initially, the system had no clue how to play chess, right? But then learned this very quickly, was able to compete, uh, at the high ranks of competition with this. But, and that is the key, uh, and the most important insight for me from that, from that work, is if you then observe the behavior, and they had one of the chess grandmasters involved in this research, they found, well, these systems are playing opening moves that no human would really play.

Right. Like, it’s completely– Humans wouldn’t do this, but they’re actually really, really good moves, right? So we can actually learn something from this because it also a- uh, brings this very fresh, new carte blanche approach of solving this problem, right? So that is, I think, very fascinating. So y- we, you never know.

It could be that in two years we will have a follow-up to this conversation, and then I’ll be, I’ll be able to share new investigative interviewing strategies that we humans have not thought of and that-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Bennett Kleinberg: these systems have discovered.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. It’s like, I mean, there’s comp- I’ve seen compilations of, of the various ways that game theory optimal approaches can deviate hugely from intuitive perspectives of what actually works, and that’s a really interesting area where, yeah, we’re often just constrained in our thinking for whatever reason, and there’s all these other approaches that just are not obvious from e- especially from a human perspective or something.

Um, yeah. No, this has been very interesting, Bennett. I really appreciate your time. Uh, I think people will really like this talk.

Zach Elwood: That was a talk with Bennett Kleinberg, who you can learn more about at bkleinberg.net. 

This has been the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. Learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com, and learn about my poker tells work at readingpokertells.com.

Categories
podcast

What’s a Scientology auditing session like? What does an e-meter do?

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.

A transcript is below.

Episode links:

Resources related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts are generated automatically and will contain errors)

Chris Shelton (intro clip): “The preclear has no voice in the matter and no authority in that room. So when that door is closed and locked, if the preclear wants to get up and leave, he’s gotta get through the auditor, and the auditor is trained to resist and stop him. They actually do practice drills and role-playing to stop and manhandle a person back into the chair… and demand answers to the questions that they are asking…. And as the auditor you’re trained to know that anything this guy is doing that’s resisting you is not him. It’s his reactive mind…. Sometimes people will be badgered into false confessions… This is the place where people start making up answers ’cause they need to come up with some answer ’cause they can’t get out of that room until they do.”

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with Chris Shelton, who was in the Church of Scientology for 27 years and who has spent thousands of hours conducting so-called “auditing” of fellow Scientologists. 

This is the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.

I was recently doing some research on the polygraph, aka the lie detector, and that included having a couple polygraph examiners on this podcast. This led me to get curious to learn more about the Scientology e-meter, which measures galvanic skin response, basically the level of moisture and conductance in the skin. Galvanic skin response is generally considered the most important measurement that the polygraph measures.  

I wanted to ask Chris some questions. What exactly are Scientologists doing with the e-meter? What do they think it is telling them? What kinds of questions are they asking and what kinds of information are they trying to find? What e-meter movements are they looking for and what do they think those movements mean? How does a typical audit happen? How similar is it to a polygraph examination? Do false confessions sometimes happen? 

Those are just a few of the topics we cover in this talk. If you’re interested in Scientology, or in interrogation- and behavior-reading topics, I think you’ll enjoy this talk. And note that if you want to learn more about the e-meter, Chris has a longer more detailed history and explanation on his youtube channel; that video is titled “Scientology’s e-meter demystified.” 

A bit more about Chris Shelton: he’s an author, anti-cult activist, and former Scientologist who spent 27 years in the Church of Scientology, including 17 years in its Sea Organization. He holds a master’s degree in coercive control and hosts the podcast Speaking of Cults, which explores cults, manipulation, and recovery. I’ve appeared on Chris’s podcast a couple times talking about behavior-reading myths and about the large number of deceptive behavior “experts” who spread silly and harmful information. Chris is also the author of the book Scientology: A to Xenu and a recently published book What Now? A Practical Guide to Life After a Cult. That new book is not just about getting free of cults, but about getting free from coercive, psychologically abusive partners, where the mental dynamics can be quite similar to those found in cults. Chris has also appeared in and consulted on the movie Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath. 

Okay here’s the talk with Chris Shelton: 

Zach Elwood: Hey, Chris. Thanks for joining me.

Chris Shelton: Hey, thanks very much for having me. It’s always fun, fun time talking to you.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, for sure. Uh, how’s the… I was curious how the, uh, book launch and promotion is going for you.

Chris Shelton: Yeah, my books, yeah, they’re going great. Um, now I’ve, now I’ve got books. Mm-hmm. So I wrote this book about Scientology 10 years ago, and now I’ve written a new book about cult recovery, and it’s selling, uh, and going great, and we are putting a workshop together that where people will be able to meet with me, and we’ll be able to go through the chapters, and it’s just been a lot of fun, uh, and I’ve been getting some great feedback.

Zach Elwood: Nice. You wanna hold it up, uh, for pe- Oh, yeah … anybody that’s watching? Let’s do it. Um, yeah. Like this? And I, and I actually just, uh, so it’s about getting out of cults, but as you mentioned, uh, it’s also theoretically good for people that are, are getting out of coercive, uh, controlling relationships and trying to think about what’s next.

Is that right?

Chris Shelton: That’s exactly right. Yeah. This is a book that is 20 chapters of advice, information, education, all the things I wish somebody had told me when I first got out of Scientology. Literally, everything I wish somebody had told me is in here. Originally, it was only gonna be 10 chapters, but it just kept growing ’cause I was like, “No, I need to know about this and this and this.”

So I got stuff in here about critical thinking, emotional intelligence. Obviously, there’s a whole chapter in here on coercive control and what it is and how it manifests. There’s a chapter in here on, um, yeah, emotional intelligence, on morality, on religion, on ethics. There’s a whole slew of stuff that people need to deal with when they come out of a destructive cult situation, which also happens to be a lot of the same stuff that people have to deal with when they come out of a domestic violence situation.

The predator-prey dynamic is the same, whether it’s in a domestic partnership or whether it’s in a destructive cult. In fact, one of the first things I learned about this years and years ago was that we call these d- these abusive domestic partnerships a cult of one. ‘Cause it’s the same behavior dynamics- Mm-hmm

and that’s, um, that’s where the coercion comes in.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. That’s great. Um, yeah, so maybe that’s a good segue. Uh, your, what was it? 26 years in Scientology is the reason that you know a lot about E-meters and how they work. Maybe you could talk a little bit about why you, uh, have a lot to say, uh, about how E-meters work.

Chris Shelton: Absolutely. The E-meter or electropsychometer is a religious artifact in the Church of Scientology, which is really just what’s called an old Wheatstone bridge, uh, electronic device. It’s just a very, very, very simple circuit design that measures, um, skin resistance. That’s all it’s measuring. And it- and yet this has the character and quality of, of ultimate truth, and as I mentioned, it’s a religious artifact.

That’s how it’s registered with the government. Uh, it’s– which is a little bit like registering your calculator with the government as a religious artifact. It’s a little bit silly, uh, ’cause there’s nothing religious about this device. But the E-meter is something I was trained to use when I was in Scientology.

There’s a whole class on how to use it that you have to do, and I spent thousands of hours behind an E-meter using it on other people the way, in the various ways that it is used. It’s not an electronic shock device. There’s nothing like that. It’s such an imperceptible amount of electricity being run through, from the E-meter through a wire to a can that you’re holding in one hand, and then the electronic signal goes over your skin and to the other can in the other hand that you’re holding, and then back to the meter.

So the whole thing completes a circuit, and that circuit is a very, very minuscule amount of voltage, but it’s enough to get over your skin. It’s not piercing into your body.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Shelton: And that re- and the resistance to that electronic flow is what shows up on the needle of the E-meter. And you’re, and there’s a couple dials you adjust to get the needle onto the, onto the, uh, panel so you can read it.

But really, it’s the needle movements and the general range of where the dials are at that are used in scienti- Scientology diagnostically to guide the Scientology practitioner in the questions they’re asking of the person that they’re working with. And that’s the very, um, neutral way of describing what the E-meter is about.

But I used it for, for… I, and I trained other people in using it. As a classroom supervisor in Scientology, I trained other Scientologists in this device, and it’s a very technically Uh, it’s a very simple electronic device that has an awful lot of mythology built up around it that makes it appear far more complicated than it really is.

So it gives Scientologists like me, and when I was in, a very inflated idea of what knowledge they have about people when a lot of what’s happening with the E-meter, I’ve come to learn, is really random. Um, and it’s… And, and there are techniques in Scientology that you do with the meter to disguise that randomity, to make it look like you’re causing something which you w- are not in fact causing.

So there’s a lot of rigmarole connected with this device, and one of the biggest things I’ve found in dealing with ex-Scientologists about it is they hold on to Hubbard’s explanations for this thing because they just don’t understand how else to think about it. And it’s been challenging to explain, “No, it’s really not complicated.

It’s actually very simple, and it’s not doing any of those things that you think it’s doing,” because they’re so sure. “But it must. I spent years on this thing. It, it, it must work, right? And there must be something to it.” Uh, not- You s- … not really so much, but we can talk about all the specifics.

Zach Elwood: And you see that even from, even from people that have left Scientology that still think there must be something to this thing, huh?

Chris Shelton: That’s right.

Zach Elwood: Uh, so, uh-

Chris Shelton: That’s, that’s… Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Do, do, uh, do you m- know much about how… Because I understand, you know, the polygraph, the, the so-called lie detector, that, that measures a few things, but skin conductivity, you know, galvanic sp- skin response or electrodermal activity, AKA, um, that’s one of the main things it measures.

Is, is it true that the E-meter is basically just measure… That, that’s all it’s measuring is just the galvanic skin response, the condu- conductivity? Is, am I getting that right? There’s nothing much else to it. You, you

Chris Shelton: nailed it.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Chris Shelton: That’s exactly what it’s doing. It is one-third of a polygraph. A polygraph is called poly ’cause, a polygraph ’cause it’s graphing three different things.

It’s graphing rep- respiration, uh, heartbeat, and, um, skin response- Right.

Zach Elwood: Right …

Chris Shelton: uh, to an electronic flow. Very, very, very much like what the E-Meter is doing with, with, you know, running a circuit over the body and running that electronic circuit over it, and then graphing it on a continuous strip of paper rather than manifesting it on a needle on a dial that is- Mm-hmm

read in real time. In, on a polygraph it’s read over time-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Shelton: uh, on these, on these graphs, and that’s why it’s called that. Hmm. But yes, it is a basically just one-third of a lie detector. And it, for anybody, um, just to get this out of the way right away, and I’m sure you know this, um, the lie detector is not a detector of lies.

Hmm. It is a detector of body states. It is registering states of your body. Mm-hmm. And from that we make assumptions or inferences about what that means when it comes to, uh, subjective truths about you.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, and I have a d- I have a previous episode, um, about the, um- weaknesses of the lie detector for anybody that’s- Yeah

curious about that. Um, so I was reading the Wikipedia entry for the E-meter, and one thing that was kind of confusing to me, uh, was that it seemed like there were various patents filed for this, which seemed confusing to me considering, uh, that it just seemed to be, you know, how basic the machine was. But I- maybe that, maybe that’s mainly about how easy it can be to get a patent for something too.

Like, you just change something about the machine and you have a patent for it. But do you have any thoughts or knowledge about that?

Chris Shelton: Oh, no, very much so. Yeah. Cool. Um, this was actually has to do with control and, and, and the, um, money that can be made from E-meters. Back in… I’ll just give you a real quick history lesson here.

This’ll be really fast. Um, th- there’s, there’s tons to know, but the bottom line is that L. Ron Hubbard did not invent the E-meter. A guy named Volney Mathison did, and he was a chiropractor and, you know, kind of along the same lines as Hubbard. He was a little bit of a let’s get rich figuring out how to help people know things about themselves that, you know, th- nobody can really know, and we’re gonna come up with these devices to do this.

And Mathison had come up with the meter as a, uh, in response to a lecture that L. Ron Hubbard gave in 1950. Hubbard talked about how wouldn’t it be great if there was a machine or a device that could measure, you know, this, this, this mental phenomena that he was talking about with Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, that book that he published back in ’50, 1950.

So Volney listens to this lecture, goes home, uh, breadboards up a, you know, a circuit design and, um, comes up with what he calls the Volney or the Mathison Electropsychometer. And, uh, this device was this big, big kind of boxy thing, and it had the cans on the, on the leads, and you would, you know, give it to somebody.

And Hubbard, uh, got hold of this. Mathison gave it to him in 1951, and they started going to town researching, quote unquote, “with this thing” and that was how Hubbard got his hands on it to start with. But over the years, Mathison wanted to… He was the one actually manufacturing and distributing them and getting all the money, and Hubbard was the one saying, “Hey, you need to get this E-meter because this is, we’re using this in our s- in our Dianetics techniques.”

And once Scientology started in 1953, it rolled right over into Scientology. Now, by 1954 Hubbard had had a falling out with Volney Mathison over what? Money and distribution of these meters, right? Hubbard wanted a bigger share or something like that. Um, it’s a little waffley as to exactly precisely what happened, but they had a falling out and in 1955 Hubbard was actively telling Scientologists, “We’re not using E-meters anymore.”

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: And for two years they couldn’t because Volney owned the patent and he wasn’t going to let them be distributors, the churches of Scientology. He wasn’t gonna give it to them.

Zach Elwood: So- And before, and, and before the E-meter l- uh, Hubbard was doing auditing without the E d- E-meter, he was just doing auditing with, uh, you know, no device involved, right?

Chris Shelton: Correct. Yeah. That’s exactly right. He would sometimes use, um, te- body techniques like having his hand on the person’s pulse or- Mm … watching the, the, uh, you know, the dilation of the eyes and stuff like that. These were, these were really hypnotist tricks that Hubbard was utilizing ’cause- Mm … Dianetics is ultimately hypnotism.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: The, the device helped sell the, the validity or the science-ness of the process because when you put an electronic device on the table and put cans in somebody’s hands, now suddenly it’s, it’s, it’s gone up a level in terms of the authority and, and seriousness with which we are developing or- It’s high,

Zach Elwood: it’s high tech.

It’s, uh- Oh, look at- … yeah, futur- futuristic, you know?

Chris Shelton: That’s right. Yeah. And this is all 1951. Yeah. This is a long time ago. Yeah. People had way different ideas about electronics back then, right? They thought the human brain was a computer and blah blah blah and everything was electronics. And so, so there was a lot of science fiction and science-y fiction- Mm

to glom onto with this. So Hubbard gets rid of the meters though for a couple years, but then here’s where the patents come in. So Hubbard could never get the patent for the meter. He didn’t own it. He couldn’t distribute it. He couldn’t take the money and so he, since he couldn’t control it and Mathison wouldn’t give it to him, he just said…

He took all his toys and, and went home. But then in 1957 a guy named Don Breeding who was a Hubbard, uh, acolyte and electronics guy figured out how to replicate Volney’s circuit design using a transistor. It had just been invented. S- Volney’s design had used the old, the, uh- The, um, circuit boards and everything were those big light bulb-looking things that you’d plug in- Hmm

the vacuum tubes.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: And in ’57 they had this little transistor circuit. The transistorized circuit had just come into play, and this is what they patented- Ah … before Matheson could think of it. They di- and they patented the transistorized E-Meter. Hmm. Same design, same concept, same purpose, different manufacturing process.

Hmm. And also much more compact. Hmm. It became the Hubbard electropsychometer, not the Matheson one now. Hmm. And this is why the patent exists.

Zach Elwood: Just interesting that you can patent, like, what’s basically just a galvanic skin response thing, you know? Like-

Chris Shelton: You can …

Zach Elwood: I, yeah, I, I, I guess that’s- You can … m- maybe it’s just- ‘Cause it, ’cause it-

easy to patent things at some level …

Chris Shelton: it, well, if you, if you take the circuit design of a basic Wheatstone bridge, and you put it in a box, and you put a dial on it, and you put a couple, you know, uh, uh, a, a needle registration plate there-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Shelton: and a sensitivity knob and a little trim knob-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Shelton: nobody else is doing that.

That’s a device- Right, it’s got its own unique- …

Zach Elwood: you have invented It’s got its own unique structure and design

Chris Shelton: and such. That’s right. Yeah. Nobody else has exactly an E-Meter.

Zach Elwood: Even if the

Chris Shelton: underlying- Although, again- …

Zach Elwood: technology is- …

Chris Shelton: functionally speaking, your polygraph is basically a E-Meter.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, so even if the underlying tech is similar, I guess it’s the structure that gets the patent or something, right?

Chris Shelton: You got it.

Zach Elwood: Uh.

Chris Shelton: You got it. Okay. ‘Cause I, I think patent has to a- uh, don’t quote me on this of course, but I think it also has to do with, like, purpose and function too, not just-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Shelton: how it’s

Zach Elwood: designed- Like, yeah- … but what it’s- … you’re using it for some psychology-related thing. Yeah. Whatever, whatever, uh-

Chris Shelton: You got it

Zach Elwood: the value- You got it … yeah, is. Um, yeah, so, yeah, what, what is it that, uh, this might be a big question, but-

Chris Shelton: Sure …

Zach Elwood: what is, what is it that Hubbard or Scientologists now claim that the E-Meter is reading?

Chris Shelton: This is actually pretty simple, but it’s- Okay … crazy as hell, so it- Yeah … so it might be a little weird to hear this.

But here’s, here’s the deal, right? Um- Put simply, the Scientology religion or philosophy states that you, me, thee, we’re all spiritual entities. We’re spiritual beings. We’re ghosts. We’re souls. We’re spirits. We’re not bodies. This body is just a suit of clothes you’re wearing. It’s not who you really are. Um, this whole universe that we are in, this physical manifestation of reality called the physical universe, is something you and I are mutually creating together.

We’re all responsible for this as living spiritual entities. Not through our bodies, but spiritually we are manifesting the reality of this universe and therefore it is real. We all agree to its reality, therefore we’re all living in it. And in fact, we’re trapped in it. Now, that’s as far as I’ll go into the Scientology philosophy stuff, but you need to know that to know that in Scientology you are an immortal spiritual being.

And this immortal spiritual being doesn’t have physical life. It’s, it’s, it, it’s life without physicality. It goes from body to body to body and it inhabits these bodies. It takes them over at birth. There, there’s a young body gestating in the womb and the thetan who has just d- died, uh, left a body, right?

His body died off ’cause it got old or got killed in an accident or whatever. Now he’s floating around and he needs another body. Nobody can hear him. Nobody can talk to him. He d- he can’t ev- he can’t relate with anybody. He needs to get a body so that he can interact with other- It’s like a hermit crab

people. Yeah. And of course scient- yeah, and Scientology says that you are compelled to get another body because this is a h- this whole thing is actually a big trap that we’re all caught in. We can’t just step out of it. We’re, we’re compelled, brainwashed you could say, to go get another body. So, so this cycle of life after life after life is not a choice or free will matter, it’s something we’re caught up in and can’t get out of.

And this is b- parallel in some ways I suppose with, you know, the Buddhist cycle of suffering or wheel of suffering or something, this, this endless thing that you’re c- sort of stuck to. It’s, it’s similar to this concept. Um, now that all being said, I had to tell you all that so that you would know that the thetan, the spirit, the, the entity, they call them thetans in Scientology don’t just go from life to life as happy little spirits.

They’re carrying all the baggage of all the trauma that they experienced in every single life they’ve ever had. And at this point now on Earth in 2027, 2026, right? Um, that’s a… There’s millions and millions and millions of years of baggage that we’ve been carrying around. Hubbard says that, that, that, that, um, this is a, this is crazy.

Like I said, this isn’t gonna make a lot of sense, but- Right … Hubbard says that we have been doing this, occupying bodies in this universe for four quadrillion years.

Zach Elwood: That’s a lot of baggage.

Chris Shelton: It’s a long time. So we’ve accumulated an awful lot of trauma, and we carry it around, and you could analogize it or think about it kind of like Jacob Marley in A Christmas Carol.

He’s got these chains of all these sins he committed in his life, right? That he has to drag around with him, uh, in the afterlife. It’s like that in Scientology. You’re carrying all this baggage from one life to the next to the next, and you, and you’re only accumulating it. You aren’t getting rid of it.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Shelton: The whole crux of Scientology is to get rid of it all We’re gonna- All that baggage … we’re gonna erase and remove all of those Jacob Marley chains. We’re gonna- all that trauma, all those deaths, all those murders, all that violence, all that crap you engaged in and had done to you over all these quadrillions of years, we’re gonna get rid of all of it and you’re gonna get back to this rehabilitated, happy, spiritual place where you’re em- re-empowered at full potential.

Like you’re gonna be back to godhood. You’re gonna be back to supercharged, superpowered Thanos level being, right? You’re gonna be like, you know, that level of thing. So-

Zach Elwood: And that’s, and that’s clear. That’s-

Chris Shelton: And that’s clear and the higher levels of Operating Thetan or OT.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: So if you’ve read about the whole volcano thing and the Xenu thing, all of those are stepping stones to getting to this godhood state of O- of Operating Thetan is what it’s called.

OT. Mm. Operating Thetan, right? You’re not just a thetan, you’re an Operating Thetan. You’re back to battery, you’re ready to rock. And right now you and me and thee who are listening to this right now are absolutely not ready to rock. We are not lifting things up with our minds. We are not, you know, moving planets.

We don’t have the force. We don’t have anything, right? We’re not, we’re, we’re, we’re not Neo. We wanna be Neo.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: Scientology imagines a future where we’re all Neo from The Matrix, right?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: So that’s- Quick, quick- … the kind of- Quick question … delusional fantasy that they’re living in. Please go ahead.

Zach Elwood: Um, I don’t know if I’m jumping ahead, but when, when they talk about, uh, you know, thetans latching onto you, are those other thetans like yourself or are those- Yep

some other kind of thetans?

Chris Shelton: Nope. They’re all the same. Bo-

Zach Elwood: Okay …

Chris Shelton: body thetans are thetans. Those are called- Body thetans are thetans … BTs in Scientology, body thetans.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. So they’re other beings- Body … spirits like you fighting over your body or something?

Chris Shelton: Uh, they are actually a little bit different. Um, body thetans, uh, and this all comes out of the OT III stuff, the volcano stuff.

Um, the body thetans are super, super, super secret in Scientology. Nobody talks about it. Nobody, you know, has conversations about it ’cause it’s upper level confidential stuff. You’re, you know, knowled- knowledge of that before you’re ready is supposed to have a very detrimental effect on you. Oh,

Zach Elwood: okay.

Interesting.

Chris Shelton: Yeah. So the body thetans though are just thetans like you and me. But they have been so overwhelmed by their experiences that they are in a comatose sort of semi-conscious state, and that’s why they’re clustered, glommed onto you. They’re not– They- their- they- their thoughts con- are confused with your thoughts when they are awake, but they’re sleeping most of the time or they’re unconscious most of the time.

They’re not really- Hmm … fully operational. At least you can run a body. They’re not even doing that much. They’re just stuck to you, right? So they’re- Yeah, they’re like

Zach Elwood: mind mental parasites of some sort.

Chris Shelton: I- I was gonna say it’s more like parasites. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And that’s kind of how the relationship works.

Hmm. So that’s upper-level Scientology stuff, which is neither here nor there as far as the meter goes, but it’s very, very interesting stuff. The… Getting back to the meter now, I had to give you all that spiritual Scientology look at it because it’s not a soul that’s going off to heaven. It’s not that concept.

The spiritual entity of Scientology is an independent life unit that thinks for itself, motivates itself, influences itself. It’s fully operational. It can do its own deal, and it can go off and live by itself if it wants. It doesn’t need anything or anybody. But it’s in a state after all these quadrillions of years of being pretty fucked up, right?

And so– And it doesn’t even know itself. It doesn’t realize what it is. You know, we don’t even… We, we, we put all of our faith in these, you know, in, in God, which is basically a, a, a thetan, right? Rather than realizing we are gods. I mean, you know, Scientology has this very, very self-aggrandized kind of philosophy.

The meter comes in because when you’re doing the Scientology work of de-traumatizing somebody, let’s say, right? Taking all this trauma away from them, you’re– The idea is that this trauma has physical universe substance. It’s an energy. It’s a kind of condensed, uh, energy that is literally adhered to your body.

Not the same way the body thetans are. They’re kind of stuck to you spiritually. I’m talking about sheets of energy that Hubbard says constitute your mind. Your mind is made up of sheets of energy that are storing pictures of stuff you’ve seen in the past. You don’t just have memories, you have these, you have these constructed, um, memories that are, that are real.

They’re physical, they’re tangible, and you and I can’t feel them or put our hands on them, but they can be detected with an E-meter.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Okay So the meter in

Chris Shelton: Scientology is not just measuring resistance to this, to this flow. It’s stating in Scientology that the reason for the resistance in the first place is not because of muscle tension, sweat, or any physical factor.

They nullify all of that. They say, “No, no, no, no, no, no. None of that has anything to do with why the meter is reading,” because the meter is somehow calibrated by Hubbard to tune out body reactions. There’s no way to do that, but they say in Scientology they’ve done that. So that or minimize the body reactions so that you’re only reading the thetan.

But what that means, you’re not really reading the thetan ’cause it’s– there’s nothing to read. The, the thetan is not tangible, but the thetan has these, these things it produces, these mental image pictures is what they’re called in Scientology, that are sheets of energy, and that energy impinges on the body And that’s what alters the flow of the electronic signal.

Hmm. And I had to say all that crap just to get to that place, but that’s-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Chris Shelton: where it all comes from.

Zach Elwood: And so am I understanding that part of by, by trying to go clear, are you also trying to get rid of the thetan producing? Are, are you trying to get rid of those sheets of energy it’s producing too? Is that what’s going on?

Chris Shelton: Yes. You are literally erasing them from existence.

Zach Elwood: Ah.

Chris Shelton: Hubbard says you have in you a Buck Rogers laser beam that you can just beam over these, you know, you can, you can… Uh, not literally. I’m just saying, you know, like, like, it, like functionally. Your attention and the process of Scientology auditing, the, the, the procedure they do, is supposed to direct your attention to these sheets of energy through remembering the incidents of the past.

You don’t perceive them as sheets of energy. You close your eyes and think of a picture, right? Hmm. You have memory. But that memory is not in your brain, and it’s not behind your eyeballs. So what, what are you looking at? Well, you’re looking at a, a, a created picture that has energy connected to it, and that energy is, is, is impinging on your body and can cause you to have chronic physical pain, chronic conditions, disease, right?

Bent over back, messed up arms, arthritis, all this stuff that bodies do when they start degrading and getting worse off, Hubbard lays at the feet of these energy sheets. These, the, the, the mental mass that you’re carrying around with you is how they call it in Scientology, or they’ll call it charge.

That’s a charged item. That’s a memory that has charge connected to it because it can be read on the E-meter, right? Hmm. It’s got electronic charge connected to it. Hmm. So that’s the big explanation in Scientology for what the meter is reading. All of what I just said is complete delusion. There is no sheets of energy.

None of that is real. It would be measurable if there were. There are electronic devices that have been run over bodies to read, uh, you know, the energy field around a body. This is understood science. This is not like weird mystical places we have to go. But I- Yeah … gotta debunk it as soon as I say it or people will think I’m serious, right?

So-

Zach Elwood: No, yeah. I think most people- Yeah … know that you’re, you know, a former Scientologist, so, um- Yeah,

Chris Shelton: former Scientologist. That’s right … but

Zach Elwood: unless, unless they come into the middle of it, but yeah. That’s right. That’s right. So it may be good to remind people occasionally. Um- Yeah … but I’m curious, uh, I mean- Yeah

one thing I’ve always been curious about is like- W- w- take it, take us inside of a, an average, uh, audit. You know, what, or i- is it, ’cause I imagine, I mean, my rough sense of it, and I haven’t looked too deeply in it, into it, but it seems to me it, it kind of bears some resemblance to, like, a polygraph session in the sense that they’re, like, d- digging for information and they’re like, “We’re getting a reaction there.

Are you telling, you know, are you telling, uh, you tell us more things?” But maybe you could, maybe I’m way off base on that. Maybe you could, maybe you could describe what an average audit session-

Chris Shelton: Absolutely … is like-

Zach Elwood: Well, I’ll tell you- … or was for you.

Chris Shelton: Yeah, no, I’ll tell you all about it. Um- Yeah … and in fact, I’ve actually made a video showing this, and showing the E-Meter, and showing the way that the meter is used in Scientology auditing because there are a few different methods or techniques involved with an E-Meter.

Um,

Zach Elwood: and, uh- What’s that, uh, video? Uh, if people wanted to find that longer video, how, how can they find it?

Chris Shelton: Yeah. Well, I’ll g- I’ll send you the link to it- Okay … uh, so you can post it in the show notes ’cause I’ve broken this whole thing down from A to Z, from beginning- Yeah … to end, um, on what the meter’s history is, what it’s really doing, what Scientologists are told it’s doing.

And I literally, my wife and I sat down with an E-Meter and we actually showed what, how it, what it looks like when the meter is used. And again, basically- Oh, I gotta

Zach Elwood: watch that. And s- sorry I didn’t watch it before this. I’ve just been so busy. No, it’s great. But I gotta

Chris Shelton: see this. And it’s, it’s fine. It’s, uh, but I just wanted to let your audience know it’s there.

Yeah. It’s one of the few places on the internet you can actually see-

Zach Elwood: That’s great …

Chris Shelton: excuse me, what Scientology auditing looks like.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Chris Shelton: That’s

Zach Elwood: great.

Chris Shelton: Um, so basically the meter is used to watch for the needle on the dial to read. It has to respond. And what you’re looking for is you’re calling out items or, um, talking about topics or asking questions, and this is most often how it happens, is in Scientology procedures or auditing processes, they are in the form of questions.

You are being asked questions or you are being given commands. One of the two things is happening. Often repetitively. Remember the basic of– the basic thing about Scientology auditing is that it is hypnotic. It is inducing trance states, and those trance states are induced through repetition, just like with mantras and chanting and meditation.

Same concepts. So in Scientology, though, you have an operator, the auditor, who has the meter in front of him and the preclear, the person who’s getting auditing, they’re called preclear because they’re not clear yet. And even if they do get clear, we still call them preclears because very few people run around calling people pre-OTs.

It’s preclear just rolls off the tongue better . So everybody in Scientology who’s getting auditing is basically called a preclear and, uh, or PC. We’ll call them a PC. And, uh, and the PC is sitting there holding the cans. The PC cannot see the meter, can’t see the dial, can’t see what’s going on. That’s very important.

Um, they’re not supposed to be distracted by it. So the auditor is asking these sharp and pointed questions. Now let’s say you’re doing a confessional. This is the easiest one to demonstrate. So Scientology confessionals are infamous because they are so, uh, rigorous and because they demand full transparency out of the person that you’re sec checking or giving a confessional to.

They also call it– Sorry, I slipped there. It’s also called security checking. So they call it sec checking, right? So if you’re getting a sec check in Scientology, you’re getting a confessional. And let’s say you’re being asked sharp and pointed questions. So the auditor will go into session with you and put you on the cans, and you’re sitting there in the chair holding the cans, and they do some setup stuff, uh, with the meter to make sure that you’ve eaten and slept and all that.

Um, we don’t have to get into all the minutiae of this or we’ll be here all day. But basically then the m- then the session actually gets going and I’ll have as the auditor, as the confessor, I will have a list of questions that I’m going to ask you. I don’t just make them up on the spot. Um, this is a directed, guided activity.

There’s another person called a case supervisor who usually is the one who’s writing these questions, and they– Worksheets are kept during the course of the auditing session, and they’re kept in files. So you have a dossier, a PC folder, and you have lots of them. Over time, you will accumulate many of these folders because everything you’re saying is being written down Let’s say the first question on the list, on the confessional question is, “Have you ever cheated on your wife?”

We’re doing a confessional about your marriage, let’s say, and I got a lot of questions here, and I’m gonna ask you all kinds of sharp and pointed questions about you and the state of your marriage. So the first question’s gonna get right out of the gate with, “Have you cheated on your wife?” Right? And I ask that question, and the needle goes boom.

“Have you ever cheated on your wife?” Boom. Needle responds. That’s when you’re looking for the registration.

Zach Elwood: Have you- Are we answer… Uh, you know, would, would the pers- the preclear be answering the question verbally also?

Chris Shelton: We’ll get there. Yes. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, the meter has to respond before the auditor will take up the question with the PC.

If the question is asked, “Have you ever cheated on your wife?” And the needle’s just sitting there doing nothing, question has not read. There’s no read, so there’s nothing to take up because there’s no charge there.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Shelton: See? And you’re looking for charge. You’re looking for those sheets of energy, right?

You’re looking for that charge to manifest itself on the E-meter. So there’s no charge on this question, but do you just let it go? Hell no, you don’t. You have a whole set of tools to bring to mind, to bring to bear, to get that needle to read. And there’s two things you’re looking for. You’re either looking for a read, where it responds with what’s called a fall.

It, it, it moves over to the, to the right. Um, I, I’m using my finger here, but it’s really a needle on a dial. Um, and it has to fall to the right. That’s a fall. If it’s going to the left, that’s called a rise, and nobody cares about rises. You only want falls. So you ask the question, you don’t get a fall. But you also– The other thing you’re looking for that would indicate that there isn’t any charge on this question, and we can just move on and ignore this question, is called a floating needle A floating needle, again with my finger, is when the needle is just rhythmically sweeping back and forth idly, rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle back and forth.

No big deal. The person doesn’t have anything on their mind. They’re not upset. They’re not frantic. They’re not anxious. They’re just sitting there holding the cans going, “Yeah, whatever, dude. I, no, I didn’t cheat on my wife” right? Doesn’t- it’s not, it’s not, it’s not triggering them in any way. Hmm. It’s not causing any kind of like, “Oh my God, does he know?

Does he find out? Is he gonna find out? Oh, no” right? Does- Like, those kind of reactions are not happening. The needle is floating. Does the fall- That’s what you’re looking for … does

Zach Elwood: the fall, uh, correspond to, like, a s- uh, an increase in electrodermal conductivity or? The fall indicates a random moment of resistance to the electric signal.

Right,

Chris Shelton: which- But in Scientology-

Zach Elwood: Oh, it’s resistance, not,

Chris Shelton: uh- It’s resistance, right? Not

Zach Elwood: increase,

Chris Shelton: not- That’s all it’s registering.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, yeah.

Chris Shelton: That’s all it’s registering.

Zach Elwood: Okay.

Chris Shelton: So you don’t know what a fall means. That’s in- a- in fact, the entire point of where everything goes off the rails with this. Hmm. The fall happens, and all you know is that electric signal was interrupted very, very briefly at that exact moment in time.

Registers in real time on the needle. So something just happened. In Scientology, it is assumed that if that read happens at the exact moment that you end the question verbally, they literally call it an instant read. You’re not just looking for a read, you’re looking for an instant read. It has to be at the exact end of the statement.

So that’s the, that’s the control factor that’s entered in, in reading an E-meter. It’s not… You don’t just take any random fall. It has to be in response to something you’re saying, or- Hmm … less often, something in response to what the preclear is saying. Maybe the preclear goes, “Oh, yes, I did cheat on my wife.”

Boom. There’s- Hmm … the fall. Ah, there’s the fall. Okay, good. Right? There’s the response. So you can have an instant read based on what the person is saying, but more often it’s the auditor paying attention to what he’s saying. And until the read happens, you’re not taking up the question. You’re not dealing with it.

You’re not assuming yes until you see the read. Once the read happens, I… “Okay, you cheated on your wife, now I’m gonna get all the goods.” Right? “Now you’re gonna tell me about how you cheated on your wife.” And the auditor’s gonna look at the preclear now and go, “Okay, so have you cheated on your wife?” Right?

And the guy goes, “No, I never cheated on my wife.” “Well, the meter says different.”

Zach Elwood: So, so the meter is saying, like, e- even in this context, i- is it analogous to the, the polygraph in the sense that the, the Scientol- the auditor is taking that as some sort of activity that means some deception or stress? Is that fair?

Chris Shelton: Yes. The, the auditor is trained that when the meter reads, you have a hot question.

Zach Elwood: Oh, okay. Yeah.

Chris Shelton: You have a charged question.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. You have some emotion

Chris Shelton: there. And that charge is there- Or energy. Yeah. That energy is there for a reason. Hmm. Right? And the preclear, and here’s the, here’s the, here’s where it gets gross The preclear may not yet be aware of the fact that that charge is there.

But the fact that it read indicates that he can find it, and the auditor is there to help him find it, direct his attention to get the answer to the question so that that charge can be relieved.

Zach Elwood: So,

Chris Shelton: uh- It’s all based on the assumption that if the meter responds at that exact moment in time, that charge exists and the auditor’s job is to dig it up and get this person to confess to what they did.

And they may not remember right away, so you might have to work with them. You don’t sit there and assume the guy is sitting on something and actively not telling you on purpose. But you do assume there is something there to be dug up. And even if he says no, you just assume he doesn’t know what he’s talking about yet, and you’re gonna work with him to dig it up.

W- w- The meter is believed 100% of the time over what the preclear is saying. Even if an hour or two later you’ve been working this question over trying to get this guy to tell you and he’s like, “Dude, I have not cheated on my wife and there’s no way I’m gonna say I did.” And the guy, “Well, we got something here.”

You have to sort that out, and until you’ve sorted it out, you’re not leaving that question

Zach Elwood: And what would it look like in that… What would that look like if the guy was innocent? And, like, is there a, is there a, a path in that world where the auditor believes him based on something the E-Meter shows that he’s innocent?

Like, what does that look like?

Chris Shelton: Basically, i- in a nutshell, ’cause I don’t wanna get into all the technical crap that you end up doing, there are checks you can do. There are additional questions you can ask or check over and over and over again as needed to get that read back to make it happen again to direct the person’s attention to what it is you’re looking for.

And it’s, again, assumed that if the auditor is sitting there and sees the same reaction again or something approximating it, that, that, what’s that thought? What’s that right there? The, the needle is kind of, like, used as a guide to direct the person’s attention. Looking for that read again. Now, this is all up to the skill of the auditor and his ability to observe is that actually the exact same read, and if it is, does it even mean anything?

I mean, let’s address this for a second because the fact of the matter is there is a very, very, very strong assumption being made by the Scientology auditor that if the read happens, there is something there to be found or there is some answer to the question. My assertion at this point with my understanding of it now is that’s total horseshit.

That read was basically just randomly timed to it happened at the end of the guy’s statement. I put no stock whatsoever in the fact of the timing of a read on an E-Meter at this point, but I’m stressing it because Scientologists go so crazy about this. This is what they’re trained to do. Right. So it doesn’t really mean anything.

But in the Scientology context, it means there’s a hot question, and now I have to drag the answers out of this guy by hook or by crook. Maybe he cooperates, maybe he doesn’t. And this is the place where people start making up answers ’cause they need to come up with some answer ’cause they can’t get out of that room until they do.

And they can take an hour or two or three. I’ve done all of those, and I’ve been at both ends of this where there is no answer. There was legit no answer in the real world. This guy didn’t cheat on his wife, and he’s not gonna tell you that he did, although sometimes people will be badgered into false confessions.

Hmm. In fact, it happens all the time in Scientology. But if the badgering isn’t working and if the guy is sticking to his guns, there is eventually a way to establish whether it was a false read And you can check, was that a false read? Doink. Oh, wow, it was a false read. Okay. And after, you know, two hours of messing around, you know, when, when once you start asking false read, this guy starts getting really anxious.

“Yes, it was a false read. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes” Right? So you’re gonna see all kinds of responses. So that kind of is one way that it could go. Hmm. But false reads are not supposed to be your default position. The, the confessor, the, the Scientology security checker, there’s a special class you have to take to be able to do Scientology confessionals.

You don’t just learn how to use an E-meter and then get cut loose. There’s a whole training to this, and you are taught to be what Hubbard calls swinishly suspicious. So when somebody says no to you in a confessional session, you’re super skeptical. “Really? No, huh? Well, the meter says a little different, so I’ll tell you what.

Why don’t we just go ahead and explore this territory?” And at that point, the auditor can start saying or doing anything to get this guy to confess. He’s got a hot question, right? The read is there. His ticket is punched. This guy is gonna confess. So now my job as the auditor is to get him to do it.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Shelton: And I’m gonna, and I’m gonna, again, by hook or by crook. And most of the time within the world of Scientology, it’s a cooperative effort. It’s not a, it’s not a loggerheads thing.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: But if it hits loggerheads and you’re really at an impasse and you’re stuck The auditor’s skill and persuasion and ability to smooth talk this guy is all he’s got because he cannot let that person out of the auditing session, out of that room until that read is cleared up.

That’s the whole point of being there.

Zach Elwood: What’s the context for people getting these sessions in the first place? Like, why would Scientology auditors care about the specific things they ask about? Like, how does it come about that they’re asking those questions? Is, is it sometimes on the part of the preclear that wants to talk about it, or who’s directing the subjects that get talked about?

Chris Shelton: Yeah, no, it’s directed by this case supervisor person, and what they’re doing is following L. Ron Hubbard’s master program for every single person who goes into Scientology. It’s called The Bridge to Total Freedom, but it’s really a program of indoctrination, and it’s layers and layers of it. You, you climb this ladder.

They call it a bridge, but they might as well call it a ladder of these levels, and each level consists of or is thematically aligned to some particular thing you’re gonna deal with. So at level zero or gr- sorry, grade zero, I should say grade zero, you’re going to address communication issues. Every auditing process and thing that you’re doing on level zero has to do with difficulties and problems with communication Interpersonal communication, communicating to yourself, communicating to others, you know, you to groups, groups to you.

Like every single way you can think about communication happening, there are Scientology auditing processes that address communication, right? And address your difficulties with it. Again, using the E-meter to find those charged areas. We don’t want what you think is wrong. We want where the charge is ’cause that’s how we know what’s wrong.

This is the whole theory underlying the Scientology auditing.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: You don’t know what’s wrong with you. If you did, it wouldn’t be wrong with you. Right. So we’re really not very interested in what you have to say as to your explanations of what’s wrong. Right. We already know what’s wrong. You can’t communicate, you have problems, you commit sins, you don’t like change, and you are trying to make yourself right and other people wrong all the time.

And those five things I just laid out are the five grades that you go through in Scientology. Communication problems, sins or overts as they call them, change, and making yourself right and other people wrong is the, is the final level, grade four. Those are the steps you have to go through, those grades you have to go through to get to the state of clear.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: And then once you’re clear and you don’t have that reactive mind anymore, which is a complete artificial construct, but once you supposedly don’t have a reactive mind anymore, then you’re set up for those OT levels where you’re gonna then get into some super-duper stuff addressing, um, um- Body thetans and all that confidential stuff.

I

Zach Elwood: mean, it seems like, um, correct me if you disagree- Yeah, yeah … but it seems like it does have a lot of, uh, similarities to the polygraph environment in the sense that my understanding of the main way that polygraphs get information from people is not because they can detect lies, because we know they aren’t good at that.

But the fact that you’re just using it as a way to basically probe people and be like, “Oh, we got a response. You know, you, you gotta give, you know, give us an answer about why it’s getting a response.” It’s basically just used as a tool for manipulating people into coughing up more information. So it seems like there’s a lot of similarities i- in both those cases.

Would you, would you agree with that?

Chris Shelton: I would.

Zach Elwood: Okay.

Chris Shelton: This is where the difference comes down between ethical and unethical polygraph use. Let’s talk about that for a second ’cause it’s important. Um, there have been interviews with, with ethical professional polygraph operators who have, say, for example, operated in the CIA or Secret Service, stuff like that, right?

And they have very interesting things to say because when they talk honestly about how they use the polygraph, what happens is when you’re doing this for job security clearance issues, let’s say, which is about as analogous in real world, you know, examples to what I just explained with the president- Yeah, ‘

Zach Elwood: cause they even call it security, uh, checking in, uh, Scientology, right?

So…

Chris Shelton: That’s right. Yeah. That’s right. So let’s say you’re at the… You’re the polygraph operator for the Secret Service, and here’s a job applicant, and he comes in, and his job is to protect the president. Well, your job is to make sure he’s not an enemy plant, a mole, a s- a pervert, a spy, all kinds of things.

That’s your job. And your polygraph is the tool you have, right? So how do you use this thing? Well, if you’re honest, then when there’s a reaction, all you know is there was a reaction That reaction could have come from nervousness, anticipation, anxiety, sc- fear of not getting the job, nervousness about the whole process.

Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: Nervousness about being falsely registered. Mm-hmm. Right? Anticipation of an injustice happening to you. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: The same amount of- All- The, the same, the same factors and noise that, that make it hard to read, or nearly impossible to read, like small behavioral cues, right? So

Chris Shelton: You got it. Yeah.

Exactly. This is why this is our territory, right? Yeah. Because all you know is the thing reacted. The polygraph operator’s job is not to assume, “Oh, I, I got a reaction, therefore this guy’s absolutely guilty.” It’s more of a, “Ding, ding. Wait a second. What’s this? Let’s call some attention to this. What is this?”

Mm-hmm. “And what’s going to clear it? What’s gonna sort it out so I don’t keep having this problem,” right? Um, and if it’s nervousness or whatever, good. Let’s get that. Good. Tell me about the nervousness. Tell me about the this. Tell me about the that. Let’s get it all off your chest. Good. Now I’m gonna ask you this question.

Now, when I ask you this question, look, it’s still getting… I don’t know, man. There’s still something on this. I’m not sure what we’re looking at, but you wanna, like, start coughing? And of course, this has led famously to, um, cases where people were, you know, pedophiles or involved in secret sex stuff or online activities they shouldn’t have been involved in, and they end up having to confess this stuff during their job interview basically.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: Because the polygraph operator is just like a little, you know, they’ve just got that thing in there and they’re just not gonna let it go. Right. And that’s their job. The auditor, the difference between that scenario, which I will call ethical polygraphing, right, or ethical interviewing, because you don’t know and you don’t assume you know.

You don’t assume you know anything. All you know is you got a reaction and you gotta sort it out. In Scientology, as I explained, it’s a very different thing. The assumption is absolutely, positively you got an answer to this question and my job is to dig it up. And it’s never gonna be your nervousness, your anxiousness, your worry or this or that.

That I don’t even wanna hear it. I don’t- we’re not going there. That has nothing to do with this. That’s not why the meter read. In Scientology, nobody would believe that was why it read. It read because I asked you a question and there’s charge on that question, and we’re gonna find out why.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, even though you said there was- You know, maybe you didn’t- You said there was like a, a path to viewing it as a false read, but you also said that that was a rarity and that was not-

Chris Shelton: Yeah

Zach Elwood: the default. That’s- That was like a ra- a rarity, yeah …

Chris Shelton: that’s after two hours of like just banging on the guy. Yeah. And the, and it’s all to, and, and it’s all up to the auditor. Ag- ag- again, may- maybe as, as, as subjective as polygraphs because it’s all up to the polygraph operator too. But I, but I really wanted to stress that basic fundamental difference in assumption because it’s a very, very important one.

Um, the auditors are trained to assume this. They’re, they’re trained to know that meter is 100% reliable and never makes a mistake.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: Right? So if you’re reading it wrong, well, you’re reading it wrong, but it’s not the meter, it’s you, right? You, you, you, that meter is 100% reliable 100% of the time. So that’s a very different assumption.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I guess, I guess to s- to summarize or, or tr- to try to summarize what you’re saying, it’s like you can imagine polygraph, uh, examiners not believing in the polygraph and still using it as kind of a tool to try to get information, whereas like a Scientologist firmly believes that this is a magical, you know, very h- powerful instrument, right?

So I guess

Chris Shelton: that’s- That’s right …

Zach Elwood: that’s two ways to, to view it, yeah.

Chris Shelton: Um- That’s right. And also the fact that when you’re in an auditing session, there is an environmental factor here which needs to be commented on too, which is when you’re in an auditing session in Scientology, um, just to paint the picture for anybody who doesn’t, doesn’t know ’cause I, how, how would you?

Um, I mentioned that there’s a desk, there’s the pre-clear holding the cans, and there’s the auditor looking at the e-meter. The door, the entrance door to the room is behind the auditor. 100% of the time it is behind the auditor, and that auditing session is not done and we are not taking a break until the auditor says we are The preclear has no voice in the matter and no authority in that room.

So when that door is closed and locked, if the preclear wants to get up and leave, he’s gotta get through the auditor, and the auditor is trained to resist and stop him. Hmm. They actually do practice drills and role-playing to stop and manhandle a person back into the chair-

Zach Elwood: My

Chris Shelton: gosh … and demand answers to the questions that they are asking.

And they feel completely free to do this in- ’cause this is the standard practice of Scientology. You force yourself, you force those answers out if you need to because you know as the auditor you’re trained to know that anything this guy is doing that’s resisting you is not him. It’s his reactive mind.

It’s his case. It’s this other stuff. It’s his body thetans.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Shelton: It’s not him. You’re actually doing him a service by manhandling and abusing him back into that chair, see?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: And that’s the viewpoint of the Scientology auditor is he is there doing a service for this person. So they are trained to abuse in the name of help.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Shelton: Wow. And that’s the key, key difference between the attitude and approach of a Scientology auditor versus a polygraph operator who’s just doing a job. “I got questions. I gotta ask them to you. If I get responses, I’m gonna ask you about those, but this isn’t life or fucking death.”

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: Right? “This is just an, this is just a polygraph interview.”

They have a much clearer perspective of what they’re doing than a Scientology auditor does.

Zach Elwood: Um, how many audits sessions would you say you, you did over is that, can you estimate that? Oh, me? Yeah.

Chris Shelton: Oh, thousands. Thousands. Oh, yeah. I have, I probably had something like 75 or 80 PC folders-

Zach Elwood: Wow …

Chris Shelton: of my own, right?

And, um, and I ca- you can’t look in them. You don’t get access to your own folders, so I, I never did see inside mine. But I certainly saw inside lots of other people’s and, you know, I, I knew people who had 200 folders.

Zach Elwood: Huh. Wow.

Chris Shelton: Um, there’s a lot of auditing that happens in Scientology to get up to those OT levels and get through all those grades and stuff.

These are not once and dones. Uh, these are it takes hours and hours and hours just to get through one grade.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Uh, h- so how did your, you know, how did you feel after doing these sessions back then when you were a true believer? Did you feel like you were badgering and interrogating people? Did you feel good about it afterwards?

What, what was your overall sense back when you were a believer?

Chris Shelton: It was a, it was a varied experience, um, because people have lots of different reactions to this. You know, when you lock somebody up in a room and start, you know, demanding answers out of them, people will respond in lots of different ways.

It’s a co- like I said, it’s a cooperative effort, so it’s not a thing of, you know, you’re in there pugilistically duking it out the whole time and the preclear doesn’t even wanna be there. That wouldn’t work at all.

Zach Elwood: They usually wanna be

Chris Shelton: there. The, the, the-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Chris Shelton: right? The preclear very much wants to be there.

Yeah. They’re paying a great deal of money to be there, in fact.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: So it’s, it’s, so they’re very much in the mood of cooperating with the auditor. They don’t wanna fight. But when they’re faced with a question of, “Well, shit, I just don’t have an answer to this question,” and the auditor’s like, “Well, I got a read on this, so we’re gonna be pursuing it, and I need you to dig, and I need you to look, and I need you to remember, and I need you to find it And if we gotta go into your past lives to find it, we’ll do so, right?

But, but most of the time, especially with confessionals, we’re looking for this lifetime stuff to start with. But eventually we’ll go earlier in time to your past lives. So there’s an infinite number of answers possible in an auditing session, whereas in a polygraph you’re not going into a person’s past lives, right?

They’re not gonna… Have you ever, you know, f- misfiled a report? You know, if you ask somebody that on a polygraph or, you know, are you working for a government, uh, you know, a, a, a, an enemy government agency and they go, “Uh, uh, well, I don’t know. I think I was a Russian KGB agent, uh, 1940 in my last life.” Yeah, that, that ain’t gonna fly in a, in a polygraph session.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Does the, uh… Quick question on the past lives thing. It- Yeah … it seems to me like, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like some of the way that comes about is, like, you’re, the person’s getting a hit for this specific question or topic but they have no conscious recolesh- rec- recollection of it.

So then is that where they start, like, being like, “Well, there’s something there, so let’s…” You know, and then maybe they start creating it o- on their own? Or how- Yeah … is that kind of, like, how some of it comes about?

Chris Shelton: Absolutely. It’s false memory syndrome-

Zach Elwood: Yeah,

Chris Shelton: yeah … uh, up and down, right? Yeah. Just up and down.

Yeah. You are… If somebody demands a memory from you and starts giving you the content of that memory, your brain is almost automatically universally going to start remembering things that didn’t happen. Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: Um, this is studied stuff, right? I don’t have… I’m not, I’m not, I’m not making this up and this isn’t my opinion.

Um, people’s memory is incredibly malleable- Yeah … and very, very rocky and uncertain. We do not have photographic perfect memory. Hubbard talked in- endlessly about how the ideal state of people is to have perfect 3D memory of your entire, you know, life and past lives, and Hubbard himself claimed to have this kind of eidetic memory but it was all bullshit.

He… I couldn’t even remember y- what happened yesterday, much less, you know, what happened 40 million years ago. So Scientologists have this standard laid for them after a while. They don’t come in on day one learning this, but, but after a while of getting, you know, acculturated to Scientology they start picking up the lingo and picking up the attitudes and realizing past lives are very, very much part of this picture.

You will be prevented in a confessional from what’s called diving into the past track, is how they call it, right? They, they, they want you taking responsibility for the crap you’ve done this lifetime and they want the goods on you from this lifetime. So they’re not gonna let you jump straight to, you know, 1783 when you, you know, uh, a, you know, assaulted some poor maiden.

Um, that’s not how the Scientology confessionals work exactly. Um, but- past lives are eventually through the course of the auditing. What happens, uh, uh, d- since I brought up the floating needle thing, let me just say. Let’s say you ask the guy, “Have you ever cheated on your spouse?” And the guy goes, “Yeah.” Uh, you, you finally get an answer.

“Yeah, I cheated on my spouse by giving somebody fuck me eyes. You know, when, when, uh, just, you know, right after our honeymoon, I saw some hot woman, and I, I, I flashed her some, you know, hot looks, and she flashed me back. And yeah, I felt really guilty about that, and I was kind of cheating on my wife.” And maybe you come up with an answer that way.

Um, but the needle doesn’t float. You get all the specifics, you get all the stuff you’re supposed to do about getting all of the what the guy did, and the needle’s not floating. You’re gonna ask at that point, “Is there an earlier similar time you cheated on your wife?” Right? Earlier similar time you did whatever it is that you’re being asked about, and you then go earlier in time.

Hmm. Was there something else you did to cheat on your wife before that time? This lifetime you’re looking for, but once you’ve gotten to this lifetime off, you can dive past life.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Chris Shelton: And I did plenty of that when I was in Scientology.

Zach Elwood: Huh. Yeah, and getting back to the, you know, how you felt doing that stuff back then- Yeah

was it, I imagine, I mean, it most, mo- I’d imagine it mostly felt good. You felt like you were doing good things, good work. Like it, at, at the end of the day you felt like that was a, that was a, that was a day of, uh, good hard work that did good things. Is that mostly how you felt?

Chris Shelton: Mostly, yes. Yeah. Auditing is the central activity of Scientology.

It’s the therapeutic aspect of Scientology. It’s the, it’s the, it’s where you get the awe-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Shelton: and the euphoric experiences. Where the peak experiences tend to come from is- Hmm … Scientology auditing. Because you’re also not really allowed to leave the room until you’re euphoric, right? Oh. Until you’re like, “Ah, this was great, I feel so good.”

Oh, interesting. And you feel floating and- Yeah … you’re so happy. Huh. There’s, there’s four conditions you have to meet in order to get the hell out of that room. And, and so the floating needle is one of them, and feeling really great is another one. And, you know, some sort of epiphany or realization about your life.

That’s called a cognition in Scientology, and they want a cognition out of you before they let you leave. So they’ll keep going until you produce these phenomena, and, uh, that’s how you know you’re done with a session. And, and it does feel good- Hmm … for about five minutes, you know, and then you’re carrying on with life again.

It’s, it’s the, it’s not the feelings that are the problem with Scientology auditing. It’s, I want to be clear about this because maybe I haven’t been clear in the past when, you know, on other shows or whatever and I’m misunderstood on this. But it’s important to understand that this is all deception and trickery.

This is all smoke and mirrors, right? They’re hypnotizing you, putting you into these trance states, indoctrinating you to achieve this end result of, of a peak experience, and you know you’re not getting out of that room until you have a peak experience. So you become inured or habituated to creating your own peak experiences.

But I got to tell you from experience after 27 years of that, those peak experiences really aren’t the same over and over and over again. They, they start losing their shine, you know?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: Um, that gold isn’t so glittery after a lot of decades of it. And that’s because you’re the one making all of it.

Hmm. Nobody’s, nobody’s magically taking all your trauma away, and you’re not really changing spiritually. So there’s this whole sort of- Put on show that you also end up doing as a Scientologist, but you honestly don’t even realize you’re doing it. Mm-hmm. You’re meeting social expectations and obligations, but it doesn’t real- you don’t think about it that way.

You know? You don’t experience it that way. Mm-hmm.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: Um, because you’re such a true believer. At least this is all me, right? This is all how I experienced it, so.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, well, there’s all these, you know, similar to when I worked in, uh, for this neuro-linguistic programming guy for six months. You know, they do these

You and I had talked about it, where they do the exercises. Yeah. Unusual psychological things where you’re, like, staring into each other- other’s eyes and doing unusual psychological experiences which l- can lead to these, like, strange and euphoric feelings. And, you know, that’s- Yeah … the, the, the, there, that plays a role in a lot of, uh, cult-like dynamics where you’re just reaching these kind of peak exciting states, and then if they start wearing off, you might want, like, to seek them in a more, you know, you might try seeking them in more extreme ways to try to keep the feelings up and all these kinds of things.

Um, yeah, it seems like it has some- That’s

Chris Shelton: right …

Zach Elwood: similarities there. Um-

Chris Shelton: That’s

Zach Elwood: right … I was curious, I was curious about the, um, because it does seem like because the E-meter is, you know, measuring skin conductance, it seems like theoretically, in the same way that you can, you know, train yourself to be less reactive on a polygraph s- on the getting those spikes, it seems like theoretically people would change how they respond after getting a lot of auditing sessions.

Did you see that with people becoming less reactive, like spiking the needle less or, or did you see things like that?

Chris Shelton: Well, the needle is not under your conscious control, and you can’t see it. And those two factors are pretty important in terms of understanding how to control an E-Meter from the pre-clear side.

There are body things you can do to create certain effects, but because you can’t see the needle, you’re never really sure what’s going on with the needle. Oh, right. You

Zach Elwood: can’t see it, so you’re not-

Chris Shelton: Mm-mm … sure.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: No. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: I see.

Chris Shelton: I forgot about that part. And if you sit there and squeeze the cans, it is distinctly different from what they call mental phenomena.

They shouldn’t call it that. Right. They should not ever call it that.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Chris Shelton: All of it is physical phenomena.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: But-

Zach Elwood: It’s, it’s like, it’s basically like… And we maybe we should have talked about that earlier, ’cause I, I actually- Yeah … have an episode about what skin conductance measurement is, like, what that…

You know, it’s basically like you’re… It can, it can be… Maybe it’s due to other things too, but it’s mostly, like, due to, like, your skin, like, randomly producing moisture or not, like, slight variations in the moisture- That’s right … which causes the conductivity to shift, right? And maybe it’s due to- That’s right

some other random fluctuations too, and, like, you know, electrical con- you know, whatever. I, I, I don’t really… I haven’t looked into it fully. But, like, it’s either, like, the skin conductance based on, like, slight sweating patterns, or maybe it’s, like, also random things too. Yeah.

Chris Shelton: Well, I’ll tell you, I mean, if you’re holding a can, and they’re roughly about the size of my Coke can here, right?

You’re holding it in your hand Couple things to point out is, one, your, the, the palms of your hands have more sweat glands than anybody, any other place in your body, right? Your pits and the bottoms of your feet and the, and the palms of your hand- Mm … are your major, major sweat areas. And we’re talking micro sweat glands.

Right. Right? We’re talking small, small, small amounts. You, you wouldn’t run your finger over your hand and always feel all the sweat. Right.

Zach Elwood: Right? You can- We’re talking, like, micro variations. Like, you’re, you don’t- Micro

Chris Shelton: variations …

Zach Elwood: you’re not, like, thinking you’re sweating or anything, it’s just, like, slight-

Chris Shelton: Exactly

Zach Elwood: shifts. Yeah.

Chris Shelton: And even more is micro tensions.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: Little, tiny muscle movements of- Ah. Right. Right. Almost imperceptible at the finger or palm level can also cause reactions. You don’t feel it. Right. You don’t even feel it. Micro- Right? Like micro- Yeah, you’re not

Zach Elwood: aware of it. Yeah.

Chris Shelton: Yeah, you just don’t even feel it.

Then there is, of course, the fact that the electrical signal is going over your whole skin, not just your hand. Your pits can change the, the resistance, right? Ah, yeah. Because of the sweat. There’s so many factors. Other muscle movements can affect- Yeah … the, the change. Moving your hands around affects the needle.

So many factors. So micro movements of your body can affect the needle. Right. And these are all imperceptible- Right … and not repeatable or under your conscious control. And so people get really, really, you know, confused about that because they’re kinda like, “Yeah, but what about when you’re tracing a read and, and tell that, that.

What’s that right there? What’s that thought?” Right? The person’s thinking something, and it keeps reacting. No. You don’t know that they’re thinking the exact same thing over and over again. This is never, not once, has this been the topic or s- or subject of scientific study.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: So you don’t get to sit there and tell me that the same read means the same thought.

You don’t know that.

Zach Elwood: Oh,

Chris Shelton: yeah. And even if it did, you don’t know that it’s actually reading on a thought. It’s reading on a physical manifestation or downstream consequence of a thought. So, you know, so to tell me that, you know, it’s automatically reading your mind, I think that’s a very gullible statement, right?

Mm-hmm. I think that that’s not- Mm … very grounded in the reality of the situation. And I don’t sit here claiming to have a full explanation for every single phenomena that happens on an E-meter.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: My point mainly is it’s a lot more random than Scientologists imagine it to be.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: You know?

Zach Elwood: For su- Yeah, I think we

Chris Shelton: can- And let me give you an example-

mostly agree on that … of why I, why exactly I can say that with some certainty. Let’s say, I mentioned earlier techniques to get the meter to read. Have you ever cheated on your wife? Needle doesn’t go anywhere, right? Needle’s not doing anything to respond instantly to that question. I now have a list of 20 what are called buttons that I can put in on that question, and here’s what it looks like.

Have you ever cheated on your wife? On the question, have you ever cheated on your wife, has anything been suppressed? On the question, have you ever cheated on your wife, has anything been invalidated? On the question, have you ever cheated on your wife, has anything been misunderstood? On the question, have you ever cheated on your wife, is there anything you’re protesting?

On and on and on. There’s 20 of these buttons that I can put in on the question. That gives me… Each time I ask that question And put in a button. Technically, when I- procedurally, this is how it works in Scientology. On the question, “Have you ever cheated on your wife?” Ding, there’s a read. It could happen right there.

Or it could happen on the question, “Have you ever cheated on your wife? Has anything been suppressed?” Ding-

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you’re giving yourself- …

Chris Shelton: there’s another opportunity …

Zach Elwood: many opportunities to ding- Ex- … ding for that question basically,

Chris Shelton: yeah. That’s right. I’m looking for a random E-Meter response, and I am telling myself I’m causing it by asking questions over and over again.

I have watched, and I have participated in asking a sec check question three times through with all the buttons, which means I ask that question 60 times-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Chris Shelton: before I could leave it, before I finally got something that looked a little bit like a floating needle. Good, we’re done. It floated, right? We’re gonna move on.

Wow. Right? Or I finally get that reaction I’m looking for, and I can finally take it up with the guy. Wow. So that’s why I say these guys are just fooling themselves, thinking that they’re producing a response instantly when in fact they are not.

Zach Elwood: Um, do you have any interesting anecdotes that stand out from your auditing days that you care to share?

Like, you ever had to fight anybody that was trying to leave the room? Any, any, anything that makes the most memorable, uh, stories for you you care to share? I’ll tell you a

Chris Shelton: story, I’ll tell you a story that kind of encapsulates a lot of what I’ve been talking about. It’s actually my dad’s story, um, ’cause this never happened to me as such.

I had a lot of auditing I delivered to other people, and I never had to restrain them. Um, the circumstances of, of, of it were never such that I had to do that, which I was more than happy with. But there was one time when my dad was giving a sec check to somebody, and the guy got so pissed off over some question he was being asked that he threw the cans down just like, “Fuck this,” and my dad wouldn’t let him out of the room.

So the guy went over to the window and was just standing out there with the window, “I’m gonna fuck this shit. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck this process. Fuck all this shit. Rah, rah, rah, rah, rah,” right? And my dad’s just sitting there calmly going, “Well, look, man, uh, it’s your dime.” You’re paying for this, so, you know, I’m, uh, we’re not going anywhere until I get an answer to this question.

So might as well just come back over here and sit down, right? And all based on the premise, of course, that my dad was not about to let this guy out of the room.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: Right? ‘Cause that’s just not an option. Mm-hmm. It’s literally not an option. I mean, I really wanna get that across to people, that auditors are trained very carefully.

This is not a, this is not a… Uh, I used to train them, and this point was not a, a, a small point. The auditor is 100% responsible for what goes on in that auditing session, including getting the pre-clear through the process. Mm-hmm. And they truly are trained to believe that all this badgering and abuse and let not, let them out of the room and false imprisonment is actually helping this person.

It’s that twisted up, right? That’s why I talk about how cults weaponize our empathy.

Zach Elwood: Mm.

Chris Shelton: We think we’re helping, but we’re actually abusing, right? Mm-hmm. We- it’s all twisted up.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Chris Shelton: And the meter is such a wonderful device to enable that kind of behavior. Mm-hmm. Because what could give you more certainty than a scientific instrument that’s validating everything Hubbard had to say, right?

Mm-hmm. Because he twists it all up to make it that it all makes this very simple, logical sense- But when you get out of that head trap and you look at what they’re actually doing, you end up seeing the stuff I’m saying. They’re locking the room, they’re keeping you in, they’re, you know, all the stuff that no therapist anywhere would ever get away with.

Zach Elwood: So And then they also theoretically have files on you that some people theorize are used for, you know, blackmail. Some people have theorized that’s, like, why Tom Cruise is so tied to them, these kinds of things.

Chris Shelton: Yeah. I’m here to tell you that, that the power of belief is much stronger than the power of blackmail.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I, I agree. I, yeah, all the supposition- Yeah … the, the theories about Tom Cruise, that being an ex- explainer for Tom Cruise, I’m like, I think he’s just a true believer ’cause that, it wouldn’t explain his, like, hardcore commitment to, you know, like, seeming, uh, expressing the commitment and such. But, uh- That’s right

who knows? But, uh, you know, it- No,

Chris Shelton: I, I, I, I’ll

Zach Elwood: go- I think, I think people under-

Chris Shelton: I, I- Yeah … I

Zach Elwood: think

Chris Shelton: I know.

Zach Elwood: They under- I think I know … they undervalue the, the power of, uh, commitment. Yeah, you probably have stories that maybe you can’t talk about on that front, but they may, that, maybe that’s an interesting topic

Chris Shelton: too.

Yeah. Tom Cruise is a true believer, and I think that’s all we need to say. Yeah. If you read a book, if you read a book called True Believer by Eric Hoffer, um, that will really break it down for you. Mm. And, um, and Cruise fits that mold exactly. Mm. He really very, very, very much is a true believer.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: Um, and that’s pow- that’s more power than you’ll ever have blackmailing somebody.

Blackmail is a one-shot deal. Yeah. You only get to do it once.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. It doesn’t- Um,

Chris Shelton: Cruise is not- Yeah, it d- Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Doesn’t make somebody enthusiastic to, uh, do anything for you either. Um- No … do, do you care, do you wanna carry, uh, care to share any more anecdotes before we go? Um, or-

Chris Shelton: I’ll say that, um, I’ll say that one time…

This is, this is kind of embarrassing, and I’ll just put it out there ’cause I’m an embarrassed person, but, um- When I was in Scientology one time, I was getting this auditing session and I was going backtrack, as they say, right? Back into the past life stuff. And for some reason, this is the kind of thing that would happen to me, is my imagination would go into overdrive.

But it would also meld with, and this happens over and over again with people, it would also meld with existing thoughts and books and fantasies and movies and shit that you see already, right? That you grew up with. And I was a voracious reader when I was a kid. I read thousands of books, so I had a well of stuff to draw on.

And 2001: A Space Odyssey of all things comes to mind one time when I was in an auditing session and I was recalling some past life thing of being in outer space saying, “My God, it’s full of stars,” right? Which is this quoted line from the end of, from, from 2001. And I th- I don’t know. You know, for me at the time and the moment of it, it was this sort of beautiful moment and I was like, “Oh, wow, and it coincides with this 2001 thing and isn’t that cool?”

And it was this big peak experience, and I look back now and I am just sharing that with you in, in utter embarrassment, uh, that I ever thought anything like that was actually reality. Um, but I did.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Chris Shelton: You know, I was really high- I was, I was highly trained in this thing, and I was highly trained in all the other parts of Scientology.

So I, I really thought it was this coherent system of therapy and spiritual address and that we were, we, we were becoming freer, you know, and, and better versions of ourselves. And I, I just can’t stress enough how we were not doing that and how badly we were lied to, how many layers upon layers of lies led me to that head space where I thought I could, you know, reenact Dave Bowman’s, you know, moment in my own past, right?

Like what kind of, what kind of nonsense is that?

Zach Elwood: That’s exciting, yeah. So

Chris Shelton: that’s- It’s easy to see why

Zach Elwood: it’s exciting though. Yeah, it’s like-

Chris Shelton: Very, ve- it, it- Yeah … like I said, peak experiences. Yeah, yeah. It’s real. I don’t use words like euphoria lightly. I mean, it’s- Mm … it’s heady stuff. Yeah,

Zach Elwood: yeah.

Chris Shelton: And when you think with an E-meter, this is the real crime of this, is this, this bloody E-meter is the simplest, stupidest thing you could ever imagine as far as an electronic device.

But they not only classify it as a religious artifact, they raise this thing to a standard that It’s an unbeatable truth detector, and it’s, and, and Hubbard writes about it and uses it that way. And they really enable so much of the Scientology abuse with that E-meter, and it’s something we don’t talk about a lot, which is the m- main reason why I was so keen to, to come on your- Yeah

show and talk about it.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, no, thanks Chris, and thanks for sharing your story and, uh, sharing your, uh, embarrassing stories too. Very much appreciated. Um, helps other people, that kind of stuff. So- Absolutely … uh, yeah, thanks a lot. Um, I, I guess we’ll, we’ll end it here unless you, unless you wanna share anything else about what you’re doing now.

Chris Shelton: Um, no, I would just like to say that, um, I hope that if, you know, if this was interesting and, and you like the way I’m explaining the Scientology stuff, I’ve, I’ve got over 1,000 videos on my YouTube channel that, that breaks down Scientology every which way you can possibly- Yeah … approach it. And I also talk an awful lot about cult recovery, which is why I ended up writing this book about cult recovery.

This is not just about Scientology. This is all cults. This is everything. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I’m, I, I am an expert in Scientology, but I’m also an expert in coercive control, and I really hope that, um, that the work that I’m doing can more broadly help people than just in the ex-Scientology space, and that’s really what I’m gunning for at this point.

So I, and I, and I just love talking to Zach because he and I are on s- so much the same page when- Yep … it comes to exposing psychological nonsense on the internet. Yep. Is, is Ch- is Chase Hughes still going, still at it?

Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah. We don’t, we, we, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll, we won’t get down that rabbit hole, but, um-

yeah, I appreciate it, Chris. Uh, uh, thanks a lot. I’m gonna, I’m gonna hit the stop button.

Zach Elwood: That was a talk with Chris Shelton, former Scientologist and host of the Speaking of Cults podcast. This has been the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood.

Categories
podcast

How Pete Blair got 100% accuracy in a 2014 deception detection study 

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. 

Episode links:

Resources mentioned in or related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcript is generated automatically and will contain errors)

Pete Blair: The research I did with Tim where we went really accurate on the… the cheating paradigm….   I think the results of that study where I, I went perfect, you know, I think it was 33 for 33, uh, in that particular study What exactly was I using?… I don’t know. It’s probably a constellation of things. There are certainly things that seemed to help, and we had a better question structure than we’d had previously. Um, but there were probably some of those moments of, you know, insight where I would be talking to somebody and whatever, I’d be like, “Oh, yep, you cheated….

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with Pete Blair, a former investigator and investigative trainer, who now is the executive director at the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, and also a professor of criminal justice at that school. 

The reason I wanted to talk to Pete was his involvement in a 2014 research paper titled “Expertise in Deception Detection Involves Actively Prompting Diagnostic Information Rather than Passive Behavioral Observation.” The first line of the abstract of that paper reads “In a proof-of-concept study, an expert obtained 100% deception-detection accuracy over 33 interviews.” Pete Blair was that expert. I wanted to know how he got 100% right; what approach did he take, and what strategies did he use.

I learned about that research in Tim Levine’s fantastic book Duped: Truth-Default Theory and the Social Science of Lying and Deception. I’ve had Levine on my podcast three times, to talk about what the research says about using nonverbal behavioral information to detect deception. 

While I’m on the topic, if you are interested in behavior and deception detection research, I think Tim’s book Duped is a must-read. It not only is a highly interesting tale of Tim’s journey to working through various areas of confusion and mystery in the deception detection space, but it’s also just a very informative book about how to approach intelligent research and how to avoid mis-steps and biases. 

Tim’s partnership with Blair was aimed at exploring ideas about what actually works in deception detection. We know that focusing on nonverbal behavior doesn’t work, so what does work? So their projects were focused on showcasing how much more effective deception detection comes about through focusing on what people say, and on prompting them to talk in ways that are likely to reveal information. Their goal, from my understanding, was not to say ‘the methods we used in this experiment are the best ways to detect deception’, but mainly to show that focusing on what people say, and methods for eliciting more useful information, is a hugely more effective approach than is focusing on trying to read nonverbal behavior. 

I’ll read a bit from Tim’s book Duped, where Tim talks about what he and Pete were trying to accomplish: 

Pete and I thought that accurate lie detection is often a high-context activity. Typical lie detection experiments deny judges the context to understand a sender’s statements. This makes content less useful. But, we thought, outside the lab much communication happens in situations where listeners have context. When we are talking to a person we know, for example, we have relational history with that person. In our professional lives, we have occupational experience. As members of a culture, we know the norms and the culture. A little bit of contextual understanding, we thought, might go a long way in improving the usefulness of communication content in lie detection.

Now let me skip ahead to where Tim leads up to talking about the study in question, the one where Pete got 100% correct. These were studies involving subjects who had been put into a trivia-test situation, with a cash prize at stake, in which their partner suggested they cheat when the test-giver was out of the room, and the subject would either cheat or not cheat, as was their decision. The subjects were then asked questions. 

Okay, the following is from Tim’s book:  

When Pete and I tried our hand at the fourth edition of the cheating interviews used in Truth Default Theory experiments forty-six through forty-eight, we each got 86% (twelve out of fourteen) correct.   We compared notes. We thought the questioning made ten out of the fourteen interviews pretty clear-cut. It turned out that we were both right on each of those ten interviews that we thought were pretty easy. There were four, however, that we thought were difficult. As it turned out, we both got only two of the four ambiguous ones correct. The thing was, we knew those four were the questionable ones before we scored ourselves. We knew we were guessing. Because they were taped interviews, we couldn’t go back and ask more questions and try to reduce the ambiguity. What if we’d had that option? Might we have done even better than 86%? 

In a related experience, I was at a conference, and in attendance was an expert who had been an interviewer in an expert deception detection experiment run at a different lab by different researchers. The expert told me that he thought he could have done much better than he did. He did not think the study he had participated in adequately assessed his ability. The research design, he said, thwarted him. He was given scripted questions and told to stay on script. A few times, he said, he went off script and got the sender to confess. In such cases the researchers had scolded him, said that he wasn’t following instructions, and that the data had to be tossed. He said he needed the freedom to resolve ambiguities and to persuade liars to be honest. Sticking to the script and excluding confessions meant that the results did not reflect his ability. 

Pete and I put our experiences together with the expert’s story of being thwarted by the researchers, and we decided to put our expert questioning ideas to the test. Truth Default Theory experiment fifty-two provided initial proof of concept. We thought that if we could produce some strong preliminary evidence, we could leverage that to get the funding we would need for a larger-scale experiment.

We ran thirty-three more subjects through the cheating experiment. This time Pete did the questioning. As a base script, Pete crafted the twelve questions listed in table 14.3, fifth set. However, he was free to improvise as needed. After each interview, he recorded his assessment as to who he thought cheated and who didn’t. Only four of the thirty-three participants (12%) cheated. All four honestly confessed. Even though Pete used a false-evidence ploy (he told them that their partner had said they cheated), there were no false confessions. When we tallied Pete’s judgments, he got all thirty-three correct. 100%! Wow! 

Both Pete and I were surprised by the results. We both thought he would do well. Based on Truth Default Theory experiments forty-six through fifty-one and our content-in-context experiments, we knew we could reliably get accuracy levels in the 70s. We were pretty sure we could beat that and hit accuracy in the 80s or maybe even 90%. But, thirty-three of thirty-three exceeded our expectations. Pete, in particular, was aware that he was assigning honesty at an unusually high rate. He thought that he was probably making too many honesty judgments. The cheating base-rates in the prior versions were always higher. He wondered if he was failing to catch some cheaters. He wasn’t. The base-rates were just unusual in that run, and yet he still performed to perfection. For Truth Default Theory experiment fifty-three, we showed Pete’s thirty-three interviews to 136 college students. The students got 79%. Students passively viewing Pete’s interviews did not do as well as Pete, but they did pretty darn well.

End quote. 

I’ll say that when I started talking to Pete for this interview, I was confused about how Pete had gotten 100% right in that study. I had misunderstood something Levine wrote, when he wrote that quote “pete used a false-evidence ploy” end quote. That made me think that that alone was how Pete made his guesses. I also hadn’t read the study itself, which I should have done. It turns out that there were two stages; in the first stage Pete just asked the subjects questions and listened to their responses. Then he went and made his guess. Then in the second stage, he came back and did the false-evidence ploy, which resulted in guilty people confessing. So his 100% guess rate had nothing to do with the false-evidence ploy. I just wanted to make that clear as that was something that confused me personally.

In this talk with Pete, we also talk about his views on piecing together logical deductions based on the things people say and do, and his view of the relative role of trying to interpret nonverbal behavior. We also get on the topic of how we may sometimes have flashes of insight, without really being consciously aware of all the reasons for that insight.  

If you want to learn more about Pete Blair and his work, check out his substack Tactical Science, which is at www.tacticalscience.substack.com

Here’s my talk with Pete Blair: 

Zach Elwood: Hi, Pete. Thanks for joining me.

Pete Blair: Thanks for having me on.

Zach Elwood: Uh, so maybe we could start with, uh, I, I was curious how you got into the, uh, more research side of, uh, law enforcement and interrogation related topics, if you’d care to share how that journey came about.

Pete Blair: Sure. In my, uh, misspent youth, I worked for a company called John Reid and Associates as a staff interviewer and trainer, and did a lot of work on interviewing and interrogation in the real world, and started to run into various research articles. Uh, I want– Probably ’cause of the master’s program that I was in at the time, and wanting to do some research related to my, my work, and I started to read the articles, and I just said, “You know, they, they don’t seem to be quite getting what’s really going on here, in my opinion.”

And that kinda launched me down that road.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Yeah, I was actually just looking at the, uh, the Reid area. That, yeah, that would be a whole interesting topic for another day, but I’m, I’m curious, uh, yeah, what, what was your, uh, initial, uh, entry into the, into the, the research? Um, did you– were you researching a specific area at first?

Pete Blair: Yeah, so my, uh, master’s thesis was a basic, uh, test of the Reid technique training. So we had a bunch of videos of people who were actual suspects in criminal cases, and we did a basic experimental design of training some of the students to, uh, detect deception per the Reid technique, and the other students getting no training, and then, uh, having a pre/post-test design on accuracy about who was lying or telling the truth in the videos.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Okay.

Pete Blair: That was the original study that I did.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Uh, when it comes to the, um, the work you’ve done with Tim Levine, um, obviously Tim is someone who was very skeptical of the idea that you can use non-verbal behavior to, uh, detect deception, and I assume that you would, uh, agree with him, but I’m curious if you’d like to give your overall thoughts on that area.

Pete Blair: Yeah, so I think if you, if you look at non-verbal the way it’s been researched, I think that that’s what the research shows. Uh, however, I think if you were to look at things in a… Uh, so I’ve, I’ve been leaning strongly toward an ecological approach to understanding not just interviewing interrogation, but skill acquisition and those sorts of things within law enforcement for a while.

And when you take that approach, it’s not clear that non-verbal is really distinguishable from verbal. They’re both part of how we communicate, and I don’t know that you can look at one without really looking at the other, uh, especially if the modality allows you to inter- you know, talk face to face.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Um, in that area, I think, um, some people that, you know, teach and talk about using non-verbal behavior, they will say something like, “Well, yeah, we know it’s not, you know, you c- there’s not specific behavioral cues you can use that are, you know, highly correlated with deception, but, you know, we can use behavior to, um, detect signs of anxiety which might be useful or detect other things.”

And but then the on- you know, the, the rejoinder to that, the, the criticism of that would be, well, in high-stakes situations like interrogation, people, even innocent people, have high anxiety, so that makes it very hard to use in a practical sense. But then on the– going back, you know, on the flip side, it’s like clearly every day we all have, have had, uh, situations where we’re talking to someone and they suddenly get an- anxious about a specific topic.

So it does seem possible that, you know, in interrogations that you sometimes would find yourself in a situation where you’re like, “Oh, this person seems especially, you know, uh, anxious about this topic, and maybe I’ll, I’ll follow it up with a few questions.” So that also seems quite plausible, but I’m curious what you think of that, that area there.

Pete Blair: Yeah, I’ve certainly had those moments of, uh, insight where I’m talking to somebody and then all of a sudden it’s like, “You’re lying.” You know, “You did this.” Uh, so certainly I can point to those experiences. I don’t know that I can put my finger on saying exactly what it was, uh, that made me trigger to that.

Uh, and I think one of the problems you have in trying to research nonverbal cues or even some of the verbal cues is that, uh, there’s a lot of individual variation, and then the context in which you’re doing this matters a lot, and it’s probably not the single indicators like fidgetiness or, you know, breaking eye contact or those sorts of things.

It’s probably, you know, people talk about clusters or constellations of behaviors that go together, but probably beyond what we’re able to code in regular interactions, ’cause a- as receivers of information, we’re taking in so much information all the time that’s being processed at a subconscious level.

And to be able to pick out and say, you know, “This is the thing that you’re keying on, and this is a general rule for things,” I, I don’t think that applies. And I, I think you start to see that as you look in the sports literature, that it’s, it’s kind of the same thing too, where you see that there, there’s just a lot more happening here than what we try to do in most of our analyses.

And so if you’re trying to do your analyses and break these things out, it doesn’t seem to be very successful.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, you said something that I think is a very good point about how hard it can be to disentangle the, the verbal from the nonverbal, and that’s, you know, I, I think that, I think that plays a huge role in why it’s so hard to talk about these [00:06:00] areas, because I think you’ll have, you know, for example, you might have somebody that does an interrogation and they think someone has acted in a suspicious way non-verbally, but it’s also like they could be mainly thinking about the actual things that person said, you know, like, because to me, and I think most people would agree, what, what’s being said is much, much more important than the nonverbal.

But I think what happens is because all that gets kind of clustered together, it’s like if somebody’s not answering questions in a, you know, forthright way and has patterns of deception by avoiding the question or, you know, these kinds of things, I think what happens is people can start thinking, and, and including people watching on interrogations on YouTube and such, they can be like, “Oh, I, I see these nonverbals of…”

But, but mainly they’re foc- mainly they’re getting the vibe from like how that person is actually answering the question and what they’re saying. But, but I think that gets into like why it can be muddy to kind of disentangle it because it is kind of like all jumbled together, you know?

Pete Blair: Yeah, I think that that makes sense to me that- There is that jumble that’s happening, but it, it’s even more than that.

So in some of the ecological psychology research that’s been done, uh, you know, I mentioned we’re picking up a lot of information we’re not even aware of. So there was a, a classic study done where they had three different shapes of metal. So say a, a rectangle, a circle, and a triangle. They blindfolded people so they didn’t know, uh, what the actual object was in front of them, and then somebody would hit it with a mallet so it made a gong sound, like boom, you could hear it hitting on there.

And then they had them indicate what is the shape of the object that was just struck? Okay? So they’re just hearing it. It’s a piece of metal being hit with a mallet, and they did better than chance at that. Not a lot better, but better than chance Now why is that? Well, it’s probably, assuming that it’s a real finding, and you can argue about those things obviously, but assuming that it’s a real finding, it’s probably that there’s information in the sound that’s different between those different shapes.

You’ve probably been exposed to that for your whole life, and now you’re hearing it and you’re focusing on it, and you can actually pick up that there’s something a little different about this shape, and it has some information about the shape in the sound, right? Mm-hmm. That’s something that no one would– none of us would have predicted you’d be able to do that anywhere above chance.

Mm-hmm. But there are, are several things that are like that, that are, you know, what are we picking up that we’re not really aware of and that’s not there? And a lot of these thoughts run together, and again, I haven’t been working in the deception world, uh, so much lately, but-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Pete Blair: when we talk about coaching and proper technique and there’s one right way to do thing, do something, you know, we, we spend, spend so much time about this is the right way to do this, and then we make people rep that out, do this the right way.

Well, the right way for what, right? My body’s a little different than yours. We might be in a little different situation than we’re assuming here in this particular s- you know, if we’re doing golfing on a driving range and now I’m out actually playing, the, the field is not level, right? You know, the, the course is not level at that point, and there are all these little differences that are coming in about is there that optimal thing or that one right thing?

And what you’re trying to teach people to do in a lot of the sporting context, and now I’d argue in some of the police training that we’re doing, is to be sensitive to those variations in context and expose them to a lot of those variations in context, trusting that the machinery that you have is really, really good at doing this and that you’ll be able to figure it out.

Mm-hmm. And I, if we– I, I’m, I’m assuming at some point you’re gonna turn and talk about the, the research I did with Tim where we went really accurate on the- Mm-hmm … the cheating paradigm. And I think the thing that allows high accuracy there is that it’s a context that I had seen a whole lot, I was very familiar with.

We designed it to be similar to what my work experience was like too, so that it was closer to the ecology, the environment that I was– I had been trained in and I had worked in for several years. And then I got to see multiple runs of this study done in different ways with different things. And so I am picking up information this whole time about what truth tellers and what liars act like.

I’ve got very good feedback during those times because I, I know who’s lying and who’s telling the truth, right? And I’m able to, to develop that and, and then am I picking up information there? Well, I think the results of that study where I, I went perfect, you know, I think it was 33 for 33, uh, in that particular study What exactly was I using?

I don’t know. It’s probably a constellation of things. There are certainly things that seemed to help, and we had a better question structure than we’d had previously. Um, but there were probably some of those moments of, you know, insight where I would be talking to somebody and whatever, I’d be like, “Oh, yep, you cheated.”

You know? Um, so exactly what that is, I, I don’t know that I could put my finger on.

Zach Elwood: Now, I, I know it was a while ago, and I know there were several studies, um, so… But I was curious, I mean, the one study, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the one where you got them all right, I thought that was largely or entirely because, like, you– the, they confessed based on you saying that their partner, um, you know, saw the, uh, collaborated that they…

or said that they cheated. Am I getting that, that right? ‘Cause I think the specific study- So it’s, it’s… Yes … I’m thinking about was, it was only, like, four guilty out of 33, and you guessed-

Pete Blair: Right. Yeah … something like that. So, so what happened in that particular study is there was an, an interview portion, uh, upfront where I didn’t confront them.

I talked to them, and I asked them what had happened during the study and the questions that were on the, that question list that you sent me.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pete Blair: Uh, went through those questions and I could ad-lib and go off of that. And then after that interview, there’s a break where I go out to talk to the conf- you know, their partner allegedly.

And during that break, I go out and I tell the person I think they did it or not And then I come back and I confront them regardless of whether I think they did it or not.

Zach Elwood: Oh, interesting. So- Okay. I didn’t realize that. Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I think maybe either I misread it or maybe Tim, no offense, Tim, maybe you didn’t do a great job explaining in the book.

But I, ’cause I thought… I, I hadn’t realized that you guessed after just doing the question answer.

Pete Blair: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Okay. Um-

Pete Blair: Yeah, I guessed every time that I came out, and then I came back and I confronted everybody, uh, as if they had done it. Yeah.

Zach Elwood: So you, you got it right even before the confrontation is- Correct … is what you’re saying?

Okay. Wow, that’s, I mean, that’s even more, more impressive than I, than it much… Yeah, much more impressive than I, I had, uh… I mean, it was still impressive enough what I thought, but that’s… Yeah. And it, now it makes me wanna delve even deeper to it, deeper into it because I didn’t actually read the study, which I probably should have done.

So that, yeah, that’s really interesting. So yeah, it was really about the, the design of the questions and also probably your, your, the vibes that you’re used to picking up when people answer questions in those scenarios. Is, is that accurate to say? But those two things, yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah, I think there’s a lot going on in that situation, for sure.

Zach Elwood: Right. And, and would you say… I, I, I know it’s hard, like we said, it’s hard to differentiate these things, but I would imagine, if I had to guess, I would imagine y- it would, it would mostly be, like, in the realm of, you know, 90%, like, the content of what people were saying versus, you know, other things.

Pete Blair: Again, how do you separate that when I’m face to face with you, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pete Blair: So-

Zach Elwood: Right. Like pauses- So certainly- Like pauses. Yeah. Yeah. All the, all these kinds of things, uh, can, can be, can theoretically even be cons- seen as content of what they say. Right. Right.

Pete Blair: Yeah. And I’m, I’m definitely paying a lot of attention, was paying a lot of attention to what they were saying-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm

Pete Blair: and how they talked about what happened during the particular situation and that, and that definitely had value and was diagnostic, I think. But then there’s all this other stuff that’s bundled into it, uh, that, that’s also shaping that decision as I’m doing it. And, and how much of a, an influence did it have?

I’m not sure.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I’m curious, were there- I know it was a long time ago, but, um, maybe, and maybe a general question too, uh, for those other studies, similar studies, how, how often would it happen where you thought, you know, “Oh, this could go either way,” and it was a close decision? Or were you, were you pretty confident for, for that specific study or similar studies using those questions?

Pete Blair: I think I was confident on my decisions. I’m sure there were some edge cases where maybe there was more uncertainty that would be, be typical. Uh, I do remember that the base rate of cheating in that study was, like, half of what it normally was in a study. Mm-hmm. So I was worried as I was going through it that I was missing people.

Right. Uh, that there should be more cheaters here and I’m, I’m not seeing them. Um- Yeah, there’s

Zach Elwood: so few …

Pete Blair: you know?

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah. And so I was really– I was worried about that, but at the end when I found out, I was like, “Oh, okay, great.” And as I recall, I think, I think Tim actually changed the, uh, the structure of that Uh, in the, a lot of the runs that we did, as I recall, there was a single answer that would be given to the person, um, by the confederate, by the, yeah, by the confederate, so they would get some payout for participating in the study.

And I think for the, the run he did with me, that he actually changed that number so that it was like they got two right. So it even throws that baseline about, you know, what’s normal or, or the floor of what people can get right. So-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Pete Blair: so some change there too as well.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Yeah, that made it, made it– That, that’s what made it especially, um, impressive because I think most people in your spot would’ve been like, “There’s so few, I need to start looking for more, uh, guilty people,” guessing more people guilty maybe, and having more of like a deception or y- bias towards, uh, detecting deception.

So that, that made it especially interesting. And, and I’m, I’m curious, uh, did you, um, did you have a specific strategy going in, like if they don’t meet these criteria to me, or is it more like a case-by-case basis, you know, on every- It’s- … every one?

Pete Blair: It’s a case-by-case basis. Yeah. And definitely there are certain things that are, are valuable, like knowing how many questions they got right is valuable, uh, because a lot of questions right becomes very suspicious, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pete Blair: However, and it wasn’t in my run, but I think in one of the other runs we did of the cheating study, somebody got like seven or eight correct that did not cheat out of the 10. Hmm. And, uh, he was studying for Jeopardy!.

Zach Elwood: Oh.

Pete Blair: Okay, yeah. Outlier. And so, and so he knew- Yeah … all the answers to the questions and, and that, and so you might’ve said, “Oh, here’s this,” but, um, I think they correctly classified him in that, that particular study.

But-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Pete Blair: yeah, it, it’s, so there are things like that that are there that are helpful, that are, are leading you that way, uh, on certain things, but nothing is, is surefire, and there are definitely people who got a few questions correct that didn’t cheat, so.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Mm-hmm. Uh, and do you remember, um, do you have a rough memory o-overall of like what the most, like what stood out as the, the biggest pattern, um, pre-confrontation just based on how- It’s-

they answered questions?

Pete Blair: It’s been so long.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, it’s been a while. I, and I could look- It’s hard to remember … I’m sure I could read the study and, and summarize- Yeah … some of the thing, the specifics in there for the intro too. Um- Yeah. Do you have any other, uh, any other observations that, that come to mind about that, about, about doing that specific study that might be interesting to people?

Pete Blair: Well, I think it was part of, uh, how I knew I had made it in the research world when people responded to it and called my research dangerous, so I, I thought that was pretty good.

Zach Elwood: Oh, and what, and what was the context for calling it dangerous?

Pete Blair: Uh, well, so, uh, the, uh, when you take a look at the article that has, you know, my run as kind of the, the pilot study and then the other, uh, professional investigators’ runs as the, the main study, uh, they weren’t perfect but they were also very accurate.

Uh, and then they also had the same situation where they got almost everybody who cheated to confess and nobody who didn’t cheat confessed. Uh, and particularly in my run, I was doing the things that in the literature had regularly caused false confessions in, uh, in lab settings at least. Uh, the false evidence ploys and, you know, accusations of, of guilt and then minimization, maximization stuff, all those things that were supposed to cause false confessions, and did that across my study and, and didn’t produce them.

And so we talked about that and I, and the response from the community that was involved in the, a lot of the false confessions work was, “Well, this is dangerous. You’re, you’re suggesting that people are very good at this and, and they do that.” And, and I, I think that, uh I- if you have that preconceived view that this is what’s happening and this is how it happens, um, you see contrary results as being something that, that’s dangerous to that finding.

But I think for us it was pointing at, look, we’ve done– we’ve seen deception research done for a couple decades, and it all kinda looks like this.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Pete Blair: And here’s this outlier here-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Pete Blair: that we designed to be more ecologically valid, more like the real world. Uh, and here are the– And we got real people who do this kind of thing in the real world.

And here are this, here’s this finding that’s way out there, and I think that was very threatening to a lot of people. So the, you know, there were counterarguments and straw man attacks that were made and that kind of thing. And, and, uh-

Zach Elwood: Yeah …

Pete Blair: you know, at the end– And that’s the, the limit. And I haven’t seen people really try to, you know, push on what Tim and I found back then, so.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I d- I mean, I did see… I mean, Tim talks about in his book about various misinterpretations, and it does seem like they’re missing the point, that the point is just to show that domain expertise and experience can play a major role in improving how people do in such things. It’s– And it’s not making a statement about whether those things are right or wrong in specific situations.

It’s just saying, “Hey, this is a, th- this is a much more fruitful area for deception detection than the things that were usually being studied.”

Pete Blair: Yeah. Yeah. And I, I think it’s, uh, again, if you, if you go to the, the ecological kind of approach that we’ve been looking at for skill acquisition and, and just general training, the idea of perceptual cues being connected directly to action in such a way that it’s so deep, that connection, that if you change any of the perceptual cues, you by definition change the action.

Okay? So the idea that I can practice something in an isolated context that doesn’t have any of the features of the actual game or sport that I’m doing, and then I can get really good form doing that, and then that will allow me to perform well in the field, doesn’t work. Mm-hmm. Okay? At least doesn’t work particularly effectively or efficiently, okay?

Hmm. So that, that idea that the context is critically important, that the environment in which these things function is critically important, is really a key part of trying to research that. And, and you mentioned, uh, poker in your, your email with me, and I think there you have a really interesting controlled context, right?

That we’re in, this is the way it works, this is, these are the rules around how it plays. I have, uh, I know those general rules, but then also because you’re a player for a period of time, you encounter the same people on multiple occasions, plus you can watch video of them now, I’m sure, and get all that, that background information.

And there’s probably a ton of information there that is helpful for you making judgments at the table that, yeah, if I push you on it, you’ll, you’ll tell me, “This is what I saw,” or, “This is why.” But the reality’s probably just, “I don’t know. Something seemed like they were bluffing, and I called them on it.”

Zach Elwood: Well, yeah, to that, yeah, it’s a, it’s a, it’s actually a really interesting thing because I’ve barely– I’ve basically not seen anyone talk about it, but I- it’s something I wanna do more on. Like, I’m working on a, a book actually, and the, the difference between, like, game environments, you know, which would include sports, and the difference between those areas and, like, real world non-game scenarios is just so massively different, and that’s just something I haven’t seen people talk about.

You know, for example, like, yeah, in poker, there’s specific discrete granular things you’re trying to accomplish. There’s also, like, polarity of, like, you know, someone feeling very relaxed and happy because they have a good hand and they’re gonna beat their opponent, which doesn’t really play a role, doesn’t really have an analogy in, like, interrogation or interview settings, right?

Like somebody just being really like, “I’ve beat this person,” kind of thing, you know?

Pete Blair: Yeah, yeah. It’s gonna be different for sure because the context is different, but there are also a lot of things in context that can be very similar, you know, over time. Sure,

Zach Elwood: yeah. Sure.

Pete Blair: So if you’re, if you’re an investigator, you tend to do certain kinds of crimes that you draw.

Um, one of the things that’s really ignored in, in all the, uh, deception literature for criminal investigators is you don’t interview people at random, right? You’ve got a whole set of facts that are leading you to the people that you’re talking to, and in a fair number of cases, you actually know who did it and who didn’t do it when you sit down to start talking.

Right. That- that’s why you’re talking to this person to start with. You’ve got a

Zach Elwood: wealth of information usually.

Pete Blair: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah. And so that’s how you ended up at that, that situation. And, and so this idea that I’m just doing random draws out of the population and then I’m trying to, to make sense out of what’s happening in there, I don’t think happens very often in criminal investigations.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pete Blair: And I would actually argue in some of those worst cases that you see where there are just horrendous things that happen, there are probably cases where these investigators are being asked to do something that is not their normal thing that they do, and their expertise then doesn’t apply because it’s a different situation that they haven’t encountered before.

So I, I, I would go back to real clear case of, uh, JonBenét Ramsey and the whole situation there. Those investigators that ran that investigation screwed it up, uh, from the very beginning But why? They’d never dealt with a homicide in a house like– Or like, they just don’t deal with that. Right. And so they made tons of mistakes, and they made lots of errors, and their expertise as investigators didn’t carry through very well because it’s not the thing that they are expert at.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, the, uh, another thing, it might be a good segue to something that I, I’ve also barely seen discussed. I mean, there’s al- there’s often all of this talk about, like, how can we, you know, interpret behaviors to, uh, get clues about dots or, you know, deception, or how can we interpret statements?

Uh, but I think the underlying question that’s barely examined is like, well, all of these things are gonna be pretty far from 100%, you know, s- similar to the lie d- lie detector, the polygraph, for example. It’s like, I think the, the underlying question is basically like, in what situations is information that is, is far from 100% even useful, right?

Let’s, uh– A-and so I think– So for example, in, in games like poker, it’s very useful because you’re forced to make decisions where, from a game theory, uh, strategy perspective are very close, so a little bit information can go a long way. But like– A-and similarly, if you were in a situation in an investigation where you had like, say you were in this rare situation where you had a lot of suspects and you had to try to sort something out really quickly, you might need to rely on these things that were far from 100%, right?

Or if you- But you’re- Yeah.

Pete Blair: But you’re also very likely to not be expert at those things because you don’t encounter them often enough to be, to develop that expertise. And-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Pete Blair: and that’s really, uh, uh, to me, the, the thing when you start looking at ecological design and, and that, is you need to expose people to the thing that you’re asking them to do.

And you can guide them about, “Here are things to pay attention to. Here’s what’s important. Here are some approaches you might try.” But ultimately, you’ve gotta get in there and encounter it and experience it and figure out how it works, right? And- Mm-hmm … and trust that system that you have to sort things out and really make the connections that it needs to make.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I guess the, uh… I mean, I, I keep– I tend to go towards, like, the practical question of, um, you know, how, how would these various reads and vibes that we get, say you’re an interrogator, you know, d-doing an inter- uh, interview interrogation, and you have various reads that you have. It’s like, when, when do they actually play a significant role?

And it seems to me like if we’re, if we’re talking about, like, little clues like, you know, non-verbal things or how someone has phrased something that’s separate from content, it seems to me the main practical thing, because these things are, are so, are gonna be so ambiguous, the main practical outcome is maybe like, “Oh, I’m gonna ask you a few more questions because I thought somebody was anxious.”

But like, le- if you don’t have any other confirmation in terms of, like, what somebody says or in terms of evidence, it seems like those, those kinds of things are really low on the, you know, on the practical use side other than, like, maybe I’ll follow up with a, a few questions. But would you agree with that?

Pete Blair: Yeah, I think when, uh, the idea that there’s something that piqued your interest, right? Like-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Pete Blair: whatever, maybe they said something, maybe you saw some behavior, whatever it is, you’re gonna delve into that area more and try to explain what’s happening. It, it makes sense that that’s probably happening in our…

any-anything you’re doing, any conversation you’re having, you’re monitoring your partner and, and tracking what they’re saying and then trying to follow up on that and, and do those things. An investigation has a little bit different focus on that maybe, but it’s still that interaction that’s occurring.

And so, yeah, if you ask a question and you get an answer that for whatever reason doesn’t, doesn’t seem sufficient, you’re gonna follow up on that and try to get more information on it, for sure.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Um, yeah, I, I just want to ask you so many questions because I value your input. I, I’m curious to get your take on, um, statement analysis because I, you know, and, and, and similarly to the, the nonverbal, I think that stuff can go too far, sort of like the scan stuff goes too far to me because it makes these highly confident proclamations and says that you can, you know, very accurately determine guilt.

But I, I’ll say that I am a fan of statement analysis in the sense that I do think that there are patterns there, even if they’re, you know, far from 100%, that there’s, there are patterns that I find very interesting, like the ones that Mark McClish wrote about in his book, “I Know You Are Lying.” And hi- his book was actually the, uh…

inspired me to write my book, “Verbal Poker Tells,” where I studied all these, like, small turns of phrase that people use at the poker table, which, you know, I think definitely have meaning and a lot more meaning than nonverbal things do. But I’m curious to get your take on that area, like this, maybe the spectrum of, like, what people call statement analysis.

Pete Blair: Well, I think what we’ve, we’ve seen in the, the literature that’s out there about looking for cues and those sorts of things is that the verbal things seem to be better than the nonverbal things, at least the way that we code them now. And certainly there’s a lot of information encoded in words and how you talk about things that, that’s worth really thinking about, you know.

And just one of the, the key things I think for an investigator is to always ask yourself, “Did they even answer the question that I asked?”

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pete Blair: Or are we talking about something different? And if we’re talking about something different, why are we talking about something different? And what happens when I redirect back to that to try to get an answer to that question?

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Do they dodge again? Which is just a, which is just a great thing for interviewing politicians and stuff too. A lot of, a lot of interviewers- Sure … a lot of interviewers- Sure … fail on that basic thing of like, did they, did they actually answer the question? Yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pete Blair: So I- I’ll keep, keep going

there are, there are a lot of things like that that I think are, are relevant. Uh, but I, again, trying to look for certainty, you’re gonna have to have that certainty be outside of the actual interaction itself, I think. You’re gonna have to- Mm-hmm … have some sort of evidence that confirms what’s there, uh, that you probably saw some of the coherence correspondence stuff that we, we wrote on so that, you know, does this thing they said correspond to what we know actually happened out in the real world from some other source of information we have?

Mm-hmm. If it does, then, then we’re much more likely to believe it than if it doesn’t. Um- Mm-hmm … coherence, are they consistent in what they say or are they shifting in what they say? Um-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm …

Pete Blair: that, those, those are things that matter to some extent. So that, that idea of having that out there, and if you’re talking about in a, a legal context, you’ve got to get to the level of proof.

And, you know- Right … the, one of the things I think that the false confession research people really added to the world is before that, I would say investigators would say, “I don’t I don’t believe that false confessions exist. They’re a unicorn. They’re, they’re not true. And I think after that, now I, I don’t know any investigators that I’ve talked to that say they don’t happen, right?

So-

Zach Elwood: Hmm …

Pete Blair: clearly I think false confessions happen. That line of research and, and exploring that has, has been very positive in making you acknowledge that. Uh, but then you also have the idea of, okay, if false confessions happen, how do we verify, uh, the false confes- the confession that I have, right? And there’s, there are those ideas of checking the information that they say in the confession against the case facts, and particularly if we have information that we held back, do they know that information that we held back about the crime that you assume only the criminal would actually know?

Hmm. Those are things that can strengthen your belief in that confession statement, but again, it’s an external referent that you’re looking at to, to confirm it as opposed to that. And then you need to make sure that if you’re, you’re assuming that this information didn’t get out, that it didn’t actually get out, ’cause we’ve seen in cases too where cops are either accidentally or intentionally leaking information to the suspect and that’s being integrated into a confession once the, the suspect defi- decides to confess.

Zach Elwood: Uh, I recently interviewed, uh, M- Maria Hartwig and, uh, Christian Corey together. Uh, it hasn’t come out yet, but, um, we– I know that they and other people talk about the, what they view as, uh, too much focus on getting confessions and how that can hurt, um, an interview. Uh, but I’m, uh, but on the flip side of that, it does seem like from a practical point of view, getting confessions is, is hugely important.

Um, and, and, and it seems like that can be hugely valuable as long as you’re avoiding doing things that would result in false confessions. So I’m a little bit… And, and maybe just, just be that I’m, you know, I’m, I’m pretty far from the, the discussion and pretty- Yeah … ignorant of all the discussion, but I’m curious, do you have any thoughts on that whole discussion about being too focused on confessions versus not?

Pete Blair: Yeah. So I think if you look at it from, uh, that ecological approach again, intention focuses attention determines the information that you pick up. So if my intention is to get a confession, that focuses my int- attention on the things that are gonna lead to that confession, and then the information that I pick up is all related to that confession thing.

It’s really like another, another way to think about that, have you seen the gorillas playing basketball thing that’s the perceptual blindness deal, right?

Zach Elwood: Yeah. People don’t notice- Yeah … when this gorilla walks in because- Yeah … they’re so focused on the players playing

Pete Blair: basketball. So it’s two… Yeah. It’s two teams of basketball players, one’s wearing white, one’s wearing black, and you’re told to pay attention to the pa- the players in white passing the ball back and forth.

And there are a couple balls that are going around between them, and you really have to focus on the players that are in white in order to track how many passes are happening amongst the white players, ’cause the black players are also passing the ball as well. In the middle of it, there’s a gorilla that walks out in the middle of the video and pounds his chest, and then walks off to the other side of the video.

And I, I’m always terrible about the exact percentage, but there’s a large percentage of people that when they watch that video, because their intention is to count passes, their attention is focused on the players that are in white. They’re only picking up information from the players that are in white, and they completely miss the gorilla that walks out.

And it’s, it’s, it’s a fun thing- Mm-hmm … to show in classes to students where they watch it and you just say, “Whatever happens, you’re just gonna watch this and, and do these counts.” And then the gorilla comes out, and then afterward you say, “How many passes?” And they’ll, they’ll start saying, “Oh, it was this many passes, that many passes.”

Then you’ll say, “I don’t care about the passes. What about the gorilla?”

Zach Elwood: Did you see anything

Pete Blair: else that was unusual? And they’ll go, “What?” You know? And, and that’s that idea of, of being focused on something, and really your intention focuses that attention and the world unfolds a- according to that kind of thing.

So I, I think it’s true that if you come in with this idea that I’m, I’m only looking for a confession, uh, then you’re much more likely to have a, a chance of a false confession happening. Uh, but I also would say that in at least the Reid training that, that I was engaged in, and that it’s not true for all interrogations ’cause policing’s very fragmented and, and there’s a lot of variation, but You start with a non-accusatory interview and you’re trying to make an assessment before you come in and you confront them.

And so after you confront them, their reaction to being confronted, I don’t know that there’s a lot of value in, in trying to pick up that ’cause you’ve just been confronted, right? And that’s not something you’ve experienced a lot probably, and so your reaction’s gonna be highly variable and, and, and that.

So I don’t know there’s much you pick up off of how they respond to being confronted as much as you do before you confront them and you’re trying to gather information and do that. So all the professional police training stuff that I’ve seen has always had that non-accusatory interview up front and then a switch to the confrontation afterward, uh, when it occurs.

And so I think that’s– I, I think it’s true. If you go in and your idea is just to get a confession, it’s there. And I, I think, uh, one of Tim’s insights into the runs that we did is that he thinks because we were interested in getting to the truth We didn’t produce false confessions, um, as one of his, his takeaways from it is that even though we were using these pressure tactics to do it, ultimately we were still concerned about did this person do it or not, as opposed to we just need them to say that they did it.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. And it, and it just seems like it was such a low stakes environment that it would be hard for me to imagine somebody, uh, doing a false confession to like a, an experimental, like cheating on a test kind of-

Pete Blair: Well- Um- … but yeah, but the… Yeah, it’s, it’s low stakes for it, but, and there’s also that problem you run into when you’re- ever you’re doing experimental work with college students, um, a lot of them just don’t give a crap about what you’re doing.

They just wanna get out of there. They don’t see it, uh, you know, just like, “Okay, what do I gotta do to get out of here and carry on with my life?” Oh, so

Zach Elwood: they, so they might, they might false confess ’cause they- ‘

Pete Blair: Cause it just- Yeah … doesn’t matter, right? Like I did my, my dissertation involved doing something that was a, a riff on the Alt key experiment that was the famous, uh, false confession one where you were t- you were typing on a keyboard, you were told not to press the Alt key because it would cause the computer to crash.

And then the computer would automatically crash no matter what you did, and then they would confront you and do different techniques when they confronted you, and that caused more, uh, false confessions, but-

Zach Elwood: Oh, interesting …

Pete Blair: in my, in my dissertation, my idea was, well, how often is it that you don’t know that you actually did the crime that you did?

And they definitely found people were sensitive to how fast you were typing. If you type faster, false confessions were more likely to occur ’cause there’s- Oh, interesting … more uncertainty about, about it. And so my idea was I’m gonna tell them to not press the Control, Alt, and Delete key at the same time ’cause that will cause a crash.

And then the task was totally mouse driven, so they weren’t even touching the keyboard. Yeah. And then it crashes, and then I come in and confront them. It’s about 25% of them confessed, uh, no matter what I said, whether I had false evidence or did any of these other ploys. They, they were just like, “Yeah, whatever,” and they signed the thing and got out of there.

Zach Elwood: So it’s kind of like they just know it’s an experiment, so they don’t really

Pete Blair: care basically. Yeah. It’s like, yeah. They, they just don’t… They’re not, yeah. They don’t think anything’s gonna happen to them, whereas in- … in the design that, the cheating design, it’s much more ambiguous ’cause there’s money involved.

It’s a federal study. It’s ri- you know, all this kind of stuff that it, it’s, it’s higher stakes than the typical, uh, lab study that you see, for sure.

Zach Elwood: A- and they might not have even known it was part of the study theoretically. Like, they thought they might have been being really pressured. That’s kind of how it was designed to feel that way, right?

Pete Blair: No. Yeah. So they were, th- they were told that the study was about a, uh, the impact of teamwork on being able to answer questions. That’s what they were told about.

Zach Elwood: Right. Yeah. So they’re, it’s an outside… Yeah. They’re, th- they’re being made to feel like, yeah, this is not part of the study, but some of them still might think this is still part of the study s- even with that.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah. Well, and Tim will point at, uh, some of the other interesting things that, that happened that, that we don’t talk about. So I would ask them how many questions they got right. I don’t think anybody lied to me about that But I didn’t have that information in front of me, so I don’t actually know what the ground truth was on that question.

Hmm. Um, they could’ve lied, but my impression was that none of them lied about how many they got correct.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pete Blair: Um, nobody actually stole the money, and there were several times that the, uh, in different runs of that study that the cash that we were paying them off of was also left in the room when the experimenter left.

Nobody ever stole the money, right? And I don’t know that anybody ever pointed at the confederate and said they thought the confederate was trying to set them up.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pete Blair: Uh, so that’s another thing, and Tim has– talks about that and some of the other famous, uh, social psych experiments about nobody pointed in, in a lot of those experiments at these other people as being involved in lying, uh, about it, that were involved with them in the study.

Hmm. So that’s part of his truth default theory, talking about that they’re just buying that this is the truth and it’s really happening as opposed to this is a, a setup-

Zach Elwood: Right … that’s happening. Right. Yeah. Yeah, I think, uh, yeah, even if you were, if you were unsure, I think most people would default to acting as if it was real, you know, ’cause that’s- Yep

you don’t wanna, yeah, you don’t wanna make a mistake on that. Yeah, makes sense. Yeah. Um, yeah, one second. Just looking at my notes here.

Do you have any, uh, anecdotes from your career, uh, where you made some really interesting deductions in the moment, like during a, an interview/interrogation where whether it was behavior- Definitely I’ve had- … or things people said, small clues, any anecdotes

Pete Blair: like that? Yeah, definitely I’ve had some of those moments of insight where it was just an aha moment.

Um, there, there’s one case that was an internal loss case I remember, and I don’t even remember what what it was, but there was this moment where I was like, “Oh, she took the money,” and she still has it. Um, so, so there are definitely some of those that I have. I don’t know that there are any of them I can point at and say, you know, here’s the, the actual constellation of, of what was going on at that time.

Mm-hmm. Um, there are a lot of, uh, other things. That’s the, you know, again, I’ve been out of the deception literature and, and, you know, when I talk to Tim, it makes my brain re-engage with it and, and, and think about those things and about how I’m thinking about these other things and how they connect with each other.

And I think there’s a lot of overlap in these different areas of research that, that really suggests this idea of it’s not the person that matters, it’s the person in the context that matters. That’s the unit of analysis. And if you try to remove the person from the context, you shouldn’t expect them to have any expertise.

And again, there’s a ton of research in the sports literature. If you’ve ever watched, uh, baseball players try to hit softball pitchers- … uh, it’s pretty interesting, right? You’d think, “Oh, it’s kind of the same thing,” and actually the softball’s moving slower and it’s bigger, so they should be good at this.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Pete Blair: Uh, they’re not.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Pete Blair: They’re not, because it’s different. The whole pitch motion’s different and judging it is different. And so they can figure it out if they’re a good baseball player after a little bit, but it takes some calibration time to figure it out and, and make it actually, make it actually work.

And, but I just go back to that if you’re putting people in this very artificial environment, having them do something that’s not something that they have experience with and expertise in, it’s not surprising they’re not good at whatever it is that you’re asking them to do. That’s just- Mm-hmm … not how people work.

Um-

Zach Elwood: Right. The domain is, the domain knowledge is, is so important, yeah.

Pete Blair: It, it’s, it’s credibly important and, and this idea of it gets referred to as near transfer and far transfer. So near transfer is stuff that’s really close to what you’re already doing. That’s pretty good. Far transfer is not good. Uh, it’s, it doesn’t seem to work very well on very many situations at all.

And that idea of having intuition and, and judgment and those sorts of things is kind of like, uh, Gary Klein’s naturalistic decision-making stuff that he has about what are experts doing? Are they contr- are they comparing everything to the total body of what’s happening? Or have they been exposed to a lot of situations that are like this, and they grab one that this is similar to this and that’s how I’m gonna judge it, right?

And he has some, I think, pretty good research suggesting that that’s a lot of what happens in a lot of, of human decision-making on things. Mm-hmm. So I just, I really go dig into that and say that, you know, I wouldn’t expect somebody who was an expert, uh, police interrogator, for example, to be a good poker player.

It just- Sure, the idea that I, I, I should be able to tell when somebody’s lying or telling the truth-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Pete Blair: but it’s a different, totally different context and a totally different environment. And so those skills and that calibration you have for that other environment are not likely to work well in the, in the poker environment.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. The, um… I mean, I do think Related to what we’ve been talking about, I, I do think there, there’s a lot– there, there’s some people that have a lot more pessimism on the idea of reading people than I think they should have because, I mean, there’s, there’s valid reasons to be pessimistic about-

Pete Blair: You read-

for

Zach Elwood: example, reading non-verbal-

Pete Blair: So you- …

Zach Elwood: cues and relating that to deception. But like, I’ll, I’ll give an example. Like, I was watching this interrogation footage recently. I, I watch a good amount of it and, you know, the- there’s, there was this guy who came in, his mother had been killed, and just immediately, like, he’s not– he’s strangely unemotional, but he’s talking like as if everything’s normal.

And like, people might say like, you know, he could be in shock, but it’s like, I, I think that my, my point is police who see these kinds of things, you know, if you, if you’ve seen people act guilty and unusual in a lot of, lot of situations, you’re gonna have an opinion on that, and your opinion will– If you, if you’ve had that experience a few times, your opinion will be confident a lot of times.

And it also gets into like, that’s not– Some people might call that what he, what h- how he was acting unusual related to his non-verbal behavior because it was not related to his content. But then again, it’s like that’s also like a form of communication, like how we deliver the, you know, getting back to the all the things being jumbled.

It’s like he was-

Pete Blair: Yeah …

Zach Elwood: he was making some sort of communication in, in, in, in, in how he was communicating and his lack of emotion and hi- the fact- Yeah … that he was trying to act completely normal, you know? Um, so just to say they– I think people can be too pe-pessimistic because, you know, we know that the studies show specific non-verbal cues are not tied, correlated to deception, but it’s like that’s leaving out like the meta level thing of like how all those things bubble up to meta level, you know, uh, manifestations of behavior and demeanor and all those kinds of things.

Yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah. So I think, I think there are two things going on there. One is also we gotta remember that in order to get better at something, you need feedback on whether you’re, you’re making good judgments or bad judgments, right? Uh, because just exposure without good feedback isn’t gonna help you. Um-

Zach Elwood: Right

Pete Blair: you know, the– If you go back to the, the baseball, softball example, you have immediate feedback. You hit the ball or you didn’t, right? And you know that immediately. And in poker, a lot of times you have… Although, sometimes you don’t get the feedback because of how, how the hand unfolds, right? And so- Right.

You don’t- You might- Yeah, you

Zach Elwood: often won’t. Yeah.

Pete Blair: You might, you might miss it, but the times that you do, you’re getting some feedback there, and it’s- Yeah … and it’s accurate when you get it, right? You know w- who really had what. Yeah. They were

Zach Elwood: bluffing or not. Yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah. You know? Yeah. So you, you know that. So that feedback is important.

But the other thing I would say is that we are all reading each other all the time, every day. In this interview, we’re reading each other and, and paying attention to what’s happening, and I think if you get away from trying to Put it in the terms of detecting deception-

Zach Elwood: Right …

Pete Blair: to I’m just trying to interact with you about this, and what does that, where does that interaction take me and- Mm-hmm

and where are we going? Does it seem like I’m getting where I feel like I know more about this, uh, and what happened here? Or do I leave this interview with this person and I feel like I don’t know anything more than when I started talking to that person? Maybe even I think I know less uh- Mm-hmm … than, than that.

Those are those kind of monitoring questions that we’re doing in, in every conversation, and I would, I would steer people toward paying attention to those. And, and my, my take on it kind of is that you’re gonna pay attention to the verbal stuff because that’s the stuff you’re gonna be able to validate and confirm, right?

You’re gonna assume that these other things are coming along with that as you- as you’re in there, and they’re probably biasing how you interpret and, and attend to those pieces of information that are there. And that’s probably how things work successfully, at least in the legal context, um-

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm Yeah, I would imagine, um, correct me if I’m wrong, but when you’ve had deductions, like you’ve mentioned that one where you suddenly were like, “Oh, I, I’m quite sure she’s took the money,” or whatever.

Uh, would you say that that was by and large based on, like, deductions based on what they were actually saying? W-

Pete Blair: I, I’m not even comfortable putting a finger on it- Hmm … right? To say that’s it. Yeah, definitely what she was saying was part of it. Was there other information that was going on? I’m not sure.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Mm-hmm.

Pete Blair: Uh, it’s probably there. I, uh, there’s an example of a, of a Formula 1 race car driver, and he’s in the Monte Carlo, uh, Formula 1 race, and there’s this curve that when you come out of the tunnel, it’s kind of a blind curve that happens. And on this particular race, somebody crashed right around that curve, and it took out, like, half the participants in the race.

Like, it was a major crash, and everybody was just piling into it ’cause it’s blind going in there. And this particular guy, as he came out of that tunnel and was approaching that curve, all of a sudden he downshifted, slowed down, changed his, his lane position and posture, uh, and avoided the accident, was able to continue.

And afterward everybody said, “Well, how did you know? How did you know?” And he didn’t have an immediate answer, but he thought about it for a long period of time, and he came up with an answer and he said, “Well, you know, I think what happened is, as I came out of the cur- the tunnel, I’m used to there are all these spectator stands around, and people are usually looking at you when you come out of the tunnel.”

Oh. “So it’s, it’s brighter.”

Zach Elwood: Yeah. “

Pete Blair: And because the crash had happened, everybody was looking away, so it was darker.” Not that it makes much difference in my hair, but you know, “It was darker, uh, and that’s what I think I picked up as a clue-“

Zach Elwood: Something was

Pete Blair: weird immediately. Yeah … that it, that it, that it happened, and then that made me take caution ’cause I thought I was in a weird situation.

I don’t know that that e-explanation is true at all.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Pete Blair: It’s interesting. It makes a good story.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Pete Blair: But there are hundreds of other pieces of information he might have been picking up on, like- Right. Some sort of

Zach Elwood: sounds-

Pete Blair: When you have a- … that he didn’t realize … yeah, the sound. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The, there’s, the race noise isn’t the same as the race noise was.

Yeah. The, you know- Yeah … all those things that could be going on. Mm-hmm. And we’re terrible as human beings about taking procedural knowledge and expressing it in propositions, turning it- Mm-hmm … into words and facts- Mm-hmm … about things. If you ask sports people how do you do these things that you do- A lot of times they do, “I just do it.”

If you make them think about it, they’ll, they’ll tell you a story.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Pete Blair: But there’s a whole line of research in the sports literature that shows here’s this professional doing this, says, “This is what I do for this sport.” They explain it in great detail. They demonstrate it. They do all those kinds of things, and then we go watch them play, and that is not what they do at all.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pete Blair: Yeah. And, and they’re not lying. They’re not lying. Right. It’s just we don’t have good- They’re bad at

Zach Elwood: explaining.

Pete Blair: Yeah. We don’t have good access to that for explaining. Yeah. Right? And so- Yeah … that’s a lot of what I think y- I, I caution people about is, you know, and even if you, you say, okay, in the non-verbal stuff, there’s not, um, a clear signal, we still have 5% above chance across a lot of studies for a long period of time, 4% or 5% above chance for a long period of time.

Right. There’s some kind of signal there. Um- Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Anx- anxious signs of anxiety and, and these kind of

Pete Blair: things. Yeah. Well, who knows, who knows what it is, but there’s, there’s some signal there because we’re seeing above– Otherwise, we’d be at 50% exactly, and we’re not at 50%. We’re slightly higher than that. And so- Mm-hmm

there’s some signal. We’ve tried to delve in to identify that, and it doesn’t seem there’s a clear signal from the way we’re coding it, but there’s some kind of signal there. Otherwise, you don’t get that, that finding. So I, I trust that my sensory apparatus are really good at this and really good at putting it together, and I’m just gonna allow it to work and, and delve into things and know also that I’m, I’m fallible.

I’ll make mistakes. Right.

Zach Elwood: Exactly. And I’m

Pete Blair: gonna

Zach Elwood: have- Yeah.

Pete Blair: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: As long as you’re… You know, the, I think that’s the thing. It’s like, I think some people think, you know, me or others who s- you know, talk about, uh, criticize some of the things people say about in the behavior space, which there’s a lot of just plain bullshit, but then there’s also some defensible stuff.

But it’s like, as long as you’re– It’s okay to have… You know, we’re all gonna have our reads and our vibes that we get from people through a number of ways, you know? A- a- and so as long as you’re, as long as you’re not doing things that are y- going out on a limb too much and gonna hurt people if you’re wrong, as, as long as you’re recognizing that you’re fallible, it seems like- Yeah

there’s no- there’s nothing wrong with having various reads and, and such. Yeah.

Pete Blair: Well, and then think about it in the, in the… It’s probably easier to think about in the sports context or the poker context is Do I know that you’re trying to pay attention to me and what my tells are? And so then do I start to broadcast false tells in order to lead you into a, you know, the wrong decision on what you’re doing?

Same thing happens in all kinds of sports, you know, feints and- Mm-hmm … and those sorts of things that you do in order to misdirect somebody in what they’re doing. There’s, there’s a huge amount of that that’s, that’s going on. Once I know that you’re paying attention to this and you think this is what I do, then I can change it up and throw you off, right?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Pete Blair: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: And then, then, yeah, and there’s even the level of, like, an unsophisticated opponent may think that they’re manipulating you, but their, their attempt at a false tell might actually become a tell because they’re so bad at-

Pete Blair: Sure …

Zach Elwood: uh, ma- you know, trying to, trying to manipulate you. It’s like to an experienced player or an experienced interviewer, it’s like, “Oh, I know exactly, we know what you’re trying- Sure

to do with this,” right? Yeah.

Pete Blair: Sure.

Zach Elwood: So, uh, um, well, this is, this is great. Do you wanna share, uh, briefly what you’re up to these days? I know you’ve gotten into other types of research.

Pete Blair: Yeah. So I, I, I really am in the, uh, active shooter world now, where we look at, uh, police response and EMS and fire response to these events.

That’s my primary line of research. That’s- Deeply tied in this idea of training and skill acquisition, ’cause the alert center that I work for is a training organization. That’s, that’s what we do. So I have my professor role, but I’m also running this big grant program full-time that does training. And so we’re always trying to look at how do we get the best training, the best bang for the buck out of the training that we do, which is what led me into the ecological dynamic stuff and all the sports literature, and that is looking at how do we develop skill and, and how do we do that.

Uh, I’ve got a substack called Tactical Science that’s, uh, you can go to and, and check out, uh, my publications up there. And sometimes it’s think pieces. Uh, a lot of times it’s me reviewing criminal justice related research that’s related to the topic areas that I, I think are interesting, and just kinda summarizing them in, in pretty easy to understand terms about this is what the research shows in that area.

Zach Elwood: Uh, very briefly, if you wanted to, uh, I, I saw– I happened to see one interesting thing you wrote about where something about throwing a chair to distract someone in a, in a, um, standoff kind of situation could, could save people’s lives. You wanna talk about what that was?

Pete Blair: Yeah. So that’s part of a, a long string of, uh, studies into reaction time.

And so it’s, it’s a truism in policing that action beats reaction. Uh, so if you, if you were to think back to the old Bruce Lee days where he would do that, that punch and see if you could block it, and he would catch everybody. Uh, if you understand action versus reaction, yeah, Bruce Lee was fast, but that’s not that impressive a display because the person who starts to act first has an advantage because they, they don’t have to decide what’s happening.

They don’t have to perceive what’s happening. They’re just acting, right? And so that’s a truism. We did some research back in the day, uh, on several different, you know, kind of environments that show that that plays out in multiple things, is that, uh, even a police officer with his gun extended, pointed at you, uh, if you were to have your gun down by your side and then you tried to bring the gun up and shoot him, you’re probably gonna be shot at the same time or faster than the actual police officer’s gonna shoot, ’cause the police officer has to perceive that you’re doing an action, the action’s hostile, decide they’re gonna fire, and then fire, right?

So that all has to go together. Um, to do that. So we, we had a bunch of research like that, and we know that we’re asking officers to go into rooms that could have hostile suspects in them. And if we know they’re at a reaction time disadvantage, that the bad guy’s waiting in the room for them to come in and they don’t know exactly where the bad guy is, and that, and that, is there anything we can do to help offset that disadvantage they have in reaction time?

And so the idea of… We actually did a chair and we did a coin. Turned out that the coin was too small. People didn’t see it and track it. Uh, but the chair was big enough that when you throw it, and we had a vision tracker on the bad guy standing in the corner waiting for the cop to come in, and he can see the bad guy as the chair comes in, like automatically track it and then come back to the, the police officers.

The o- idea was that that tracking slowed them down just enough to give the officer a little bit of time to get in the room and, and do that. That was the basic idea of the study.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. No, that’s great. Yeah. It seems like such a, you know, it seems almost common sense when you think about it in hindsight.

It’s like, what a great, what a great tactic. But yeah, there’s, uh, it feels like there’s probably many of these things that are little, little tips that help a lot that people just don’t think of and, yeah.

Pete Blair: So th- this goes to expertise, right? And, and what people do. You have problem sets you’re trying to deal with.

You come up with solutions to the problem sets you’re trying to deal with. So the, as a researcher, your most important job is to pay careful attention to what practitioners are doing, steal all their good ideas, and then publish them and say that, that you thought of it. I didn’t, I didn’t think of that.

It was somebody else who had thought of it, right? Nice. And all of our good ideas at, at, uh, at ALERT come from practitioners who are out in the field doing things, and then we just take them in an environment and validate those to see if they work, you know?

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Pete Blair: And I don’t know of any of them that we’ve tried to evaluate yet that don’t work because- Hmm

the practitioners have a pretty good feel for what’s happening.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Yeah, which gets into why Tim’s work was so great involving you and other people. He was really curious about what people were actually doing in, in the field and such. Yeah. Um, well, this, this has been great, Pete. Thanks a lot for, uh, for your time.

Pete Blair: Oh, thanks for having me on.


Categories
podcast

“Chase Hughes scammed me”: One woman’s story

I share one woman’s personal experience paying $50,000 to take fake behavior and psychology “expert” Chase Hughes’ Avery program, which promises extraordinary psychological transformation. She describes how impressive credentials, appearances on major podcasts, and carefully crafted marketing convinced her to sign up during a vulnerable period in her life, only to discover what she believes was an elaborate scam built on recycled techniques and false claims. I discuss the psychology of scams, why intelligent people can be drawn into them, how shame keeps many victims silent, and how this woman ultimately forced a full refund from Chase Hughes.

Read the full story