Zach Elwood—author of influential books on poker tells and host of the People Who Read People podcast—joins The Deductionist podcast for a wide-ranging conversation about what we can and can’t learn from human behavior. Drawing on his years studying poker tells and consulting for high-stakes players, Zach explains why reading behavior in structured games like poker is fundamentally different from reading people in real-world situations like interrogations, negotiations, or everyday conversations. The discussion explores why nonverbal behaviors are almost always far less informative than what people say (and what they don’t say), why we can be drawn to overconfident behavior “experts” who promise certainty in uncertain situations, and how context and environment can dramatically change the meaning of behavior. We also discuss why some law enforcement professionals claim that understanding nonverbal behavior is hugely important in their work, while others claim it has close to zero impact. Sometimes, people are talking past each other, and thinking about entirely different aspects of behavior.
Episode links:
- YouTube (includes video)
- Spotify (coming soon)
- Apple Podcasts (coming soon)
Resources mentioned in or related to this episode:
- The Deductionist podcast
- Bob Pointer’s Behavioural Intelligence Academy site
- Ben Cardall’s Omniscient Insights site
- Zach Elwood’s poker tells site
TRANSCRIPT
Zach Elwood: “The other thing about games and sports that’s a really important difference between interrogation rooms is that you can actually act on information that’s far from 100% because you’re in such a low information environment where you’re often on the fence about decisions, where it’s like an interrogation room, you’re not gonna, like, make a sudden shift to the whole investigation based on, like, a vibe about something, right?… When people have asked me… ‘What do you recommend for reading people in the real world?’ … I would just focus on books that help you understand what they’re saying and make logical deductions about what people are saying. Most people are barely focused on the deductions of what people are saying… Why would you focus on the most ambiguous and least reliable source of information? But that’s the thing… it’s a very sexy idea that we’re going to read the behavior… It’s not as sexy to be like, ‘I’m gonna think about what they’re saying and actually make some logical deductions.’ It’s much sexier to be like, ‘I’m going to look at the twitch of their nose and read them.’”
Zach Elwood: Hi I’m Zach Elwood, host of the People Who Read People podcast, which you can learn more about at behavior-podcast.com. What you just heard was a clip from The Deductionist podcast. The co-hosts invited me on to talk about reading behavior, and I’m resharing their episode via my podcast, because I enjoyed the talk. If you don’t already know, I’m a former professional poker player and the author of some respected books on poker tells, which have sold more than 48,000 copies and been translated into eight languages. In this episode, the hosts and I talk a good amount about the differences in trying to read behavior in game scenarios versus non-game scenarios, which I think is an important but barely examined point in this area.
Other topics include:
Why reading people is much harder than many self-described behavior experts make it seem.
Why nonverbal behavior is almost always much less informative than the things people are saying.
How our craving for certainty makes us vulnerable to alleged “behavior experts” promoting exaggerated ideas about behavior
Why do some law enforcement people speak as if behavior is very important in their work, while others say it plays basically no role in their work? What accounts for the very different ways in which people can speak about the importance of reading behavior?
A little bit more about this podcast and its hosts.
The Deductionist podcast is hosted by Ben Cardall, and has occasional episodes which are co-hosted by Bob Pointer, who has a company called Behavioural Intelligence Academy. The easiest way to find the podcast online is by searching for The Deductionist.
Ben Cardall is a private investigator, competitive memory practitioner, TEDx speaker, and author of the book “The Monographs: A comprehensive manual on all you need to know to become an expert Deductionist.” Through his company Omniscient Insights, Ben works with organisations in security, investigations, HR, and leadership development, building observational and critical thinking capability. Learn more about Ben at his site omniscient-insights.com
Bob Pointer spent 30 years with the City of London Police, including 26 years as a detective engaged in both overt and covert operations. He then spent five years as a specialist lecturer within the Centre for Investigative, Security and Police Sciences at City University London. He has worked as a consultant in the UK and internationally, promoting the concept of behavioural intelligence across sectors including security, sales and human resources. Learn more about Bob’s Behavioural Intelligence Academy at bi-ac.com.
You can follow both Ben and Bob on LinkedIn, also, where they post observations about investigation- and behavior-related topics.
Okay here’s the talk I had on The Deductionist podcast.
Ben Cardall: And there we go. Welcome back to another episode, my lords, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for tuning in. Thank you for stopping by and lending us your ears this evening, this morning, whatever kind of time it is wherever you are. Um, Bob, how’s it going, sir? Are you well? Are you melting? Are you surviving?
Look at me, I need guttering already. This is ridiculous.
Bob Pointer: Yeah, it is a bit warm, but, uh, yeah, I’m fine. Um, yeah, it’s gonna get warmer tomorrow. That’s the only thing to look forward to.
Ben Cardall: Yeah. Well, with, with that in mind, I’m, I’m not gonna f- uh, spend too long on our usual meandering banter. I’m gonna get straight into this because I’m quite excited to do so.
Uh, uh, l- ladies and gentlemen, we have a real treat for you this evening, um, or, or this morning. Uh, I’m, I’m in England. It’s the evening. Forgive me, it slips out. Um, we have- 103 million possible- … uh, uh, a very special guest, Zachary Elwood of The People Who Read People podcast and infamous poker player, writer, author, and studier of human behavior on all fronts.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Zachary Elwood.
Zach Elwood: Yay,
Ben Cardall: the crowd goes wild. Woo.
Zach Elwood: Hi.
Ben Cardall: Uh, thanks for joining us, sir. Thanks, guys. Appreciate you stopping by.
Zach Elwood: Thank you.
Ben Cardall: Um, so, uh, I, I, I think it is that, uh, uh, I mean, everyone who is here will, uh, that, that follows the channel will already be well aware of the podcast because I’ve been talking about it on most streams for, like, a few months anyway, um, uh, on, on some of the membership ones as well.
Um, but one of the things that we rarely get to talk about, uh, uh, because there’s not a lot of bleed over, and you’ve brought the bleed over, i- in, is, is the game of poker. It, it is, it is, it is such a, from my minimal experience as a player, it is, it is such a wonderful opportunity to, at times, quite literally put your money where your mouth is when it comes to the understanding of, of human behavior and the certainties that come off from the table or lack thereof, uh, and the, and the focus on how that’s kind of processed upstairs.
So I wonder if you could, uh, uh, start by telling us what it is that you find, uh, uh, as a, as a study lesson from the poker table that maybe no textbook could ever teach you, no YouTube video could ever teach you. What is it about the poker table that holds such, uh, connection for most people?
Zach Elwood: Oh, uh, well, the thing that’s always interested me, I mean, I’ve been into poker since I was in high school, and then in college I was Got really down the rabbit hole of it and was, I was setting up games in college and such and- Yes
taking my friends’ money and, uh, buying a lot of books online. This was back, I’m pretty old, so this was back, you know, uh, 19- 1990s, you know, late 1990s. Um- Yes … but I’ve always just loved the psychological element of it. Like, I’ve … I like that more than, you know, the known information games like chess. I liked, I like the fact that there was an element of the psychology and the reading- Yeah
people and thinking through, like, what do they think, I think, they think, the, uh, kind of levels of, of, you know, thinking even though you can easily get lost and when that goes too deep. But, um, yeah, there is that human psychological intrigue of the game that, uh, keeps you captivated, and then it’s just a fundamentally complex game just from the game theory optimal perspective too, which adds, that’s a whole nother- Yeah
super complex area. But the combination of those two things is really interesting, yeah.
Ben Cardall: 100%, love that. Um, uh, uh, it also lends itself, uh, uh, uh, uh, whether you a- agree or disagree, i- in, in terms of the impression that film and TV gives you about the capabilities of things that can and can’t be done at the poker table, just like film and TV and those who gain a YouTube channel will, will sort of put out their own, uh, uh, uh, ethos or interpretation about what can and can’t be done with the study of behavioral analysis.
So what, what’s, what’s been some of your experience around that type of thing? What type of silliness have you heard that can be done at the poker table?
Zach Elwood: Oh, yeah. There is, uh, there is, as with behavior in general, and sorry about this background noise. I don’t know if any of it’s- No worries. Good … coming through.
There’s some construction in New York City, which there always is. Uh, but the, um, yeah, I mean, one of the big myths is, like, in, in, in, uh, media and film and TV, poker’s, poker is, uh, often depicted as, as tells playing a big role, right? Mm-hmm. And there’s always gonna be some- something super obvious, you know, like in Rounders, the movie Rounders, there was- Yeah
John Malkovich cracking an Oreo cookie. You know, that was a big, uh, big reveal for his tell. Um, but in general, yeah, the, I think in general the, the common, uh, view of it is that tells play a big role in poker and that it’s a lot about reading people. And, you know, the analogy there i- is obvious too with, you know, reading people, uh, i- in the general behavior space too.
A lot of people have, like, way exaggerated ideas about what’s possible. By and large, you, you will sometimes see very obvious tells in poker- Of course … but by and large, if you’re playing experienced players, it’s pretty hard to get a read and you can go, you know, hours and hours without basing a decision on a physical thing, right?
Yeah. Like, it’s mostly about the strategy. The strategy is where most of your money is made, but if you’re good at reading tells, you might add a little bit more to that by making an occasional good read, and if you’re playing- quite amateur players, they might have even more obvious reads. But yeah, by and large, the, uh, the mainstream perception is that tells play a huge role in, in poker, right?
Ben Cardall: Yeah. Love that. Love that. Nice to get some experience from the front line of someone that’s been immersed in it for so long. Feels like I’m sh- I’m yelling into the ether for so long. Bob, what, what have you got?
Bob Pointer: Yeah, I, I was gonna come in and, uh, you probably saw a post I put on this morning, Zach, and I tagged you into it, is, um, this thing, um, around behavior.
You know, Kurt Lewin came up with an equation for behavior, and it, that it equals how a person functions in an environment. And, um, in a lot of, um, shall we say, the lesser scientific versions of people reading people that you may see online, they never seem to mention the environment, or in a lot of instances not even mentioning the context.
Um, it got me thinking about is it better to have… Uh, because poker is a high-stakes situation, uh, and it’s a, a prolonged high-stakes situation, whereas in, uh, in the real world you may come into very short, high, high stakes encounters. Um, and there’s a lot, a lot of noise around. Um, and is there a lack of noise in poker, and does that make it easier or harder to tell it, or is the noise just different noise?
Zach Elwood: Yeah, I think it’s a really good question because, I mean, that’s what’s… That’s something I’ve been thinking about the, the last few years is the difference between game environments and non-game environments. And, and to me there’s just such a, a huge difference i- in, in so many ways. So for example, in, in games you have form…
You know, and I’m including sports in there too. You have formal rules- Mm … that involve, like, very granular and discreet actions that you have to do. You know, in poker you, you have to do things by certain rules. You have to place bets. You have to pay attention to cards on the table. You have to do various things.
There’s various rules. So it’s a very formalized environment, which means… And that’s a, that’s a much more constrained, uh, less noisy environment than, say, an interrogation room when you’re… You know, you can talk about anything and it’s not even clear, you know, what the motivations might be at any given time.
You, you don’t… It’s hard to know what’s, what’s on somebody’s mind at any, any given time. But I think the interesting thing about the games and the sports, it’s like, it’s very, it’s very formalized. There’s even, you know, getting to the tells of, like, attention for, uh, uh, you know, paying attention and focused on certain things.
You know, for example, like, even chess, a complete information game, you can get a sense maybe if somebody’s staring at a certain part of the board, you can tell that they’re focused on that, that something, right? Right. Right. That’s like information theoretically, and you’d be like, “Oh, maybe I should- Pay attention to that part of the board, so you don’t wanna make it obvious where you’re staring.
But that, that kind of thing has a little analogy to, like, interrogations, right? It’s like, this is… So that’s what I mean, like, there’s all these granular kind of rules and actions that mean that, uh, you’re, y- you can more easily find clues about… And, and the same situations keep coming up and, uh, that’s, again, that’s not to say that things are easy to read necessarily.
It just means that sometimes you can get some clues that may be, you know, far from 100%, but may be still actionable. And the other thing about games and sports that’s really important difference between interrogation rooms is that you can actually act on information that’s far from 100% because you’re in such a low information environment where you’re often on the fence about decisions, where it’s like an interrogation room, you’re not gonna, like, make a sudden shift to the whole investigation based on, like, a vibe about something, right?
It’s like you’re pro- you might follow up- Yeah … with some questions or something, but, like, there, you can’t make, like, base big decisions on, on reads, whereas, like, in games and sports you can because you’re so often on the fence in var- in, in various spots. So yeah, I, I, just to say there’s so many… And I think it’s interesting ’cause that’s, because that’s something that’s rarely discussed is the role of, like, the environment and the- Yeah
the factors that, that are applying to people there. Yeah.
Bob Pointer: Yeah, it’s, it’s a fact. You, you, you know, you, if you… And, uh, I hear it a lot, I work with people in the, you know, motor industry, and they go to shows, and they may meet someone at a show, and they’re very, uh, agreeable and they have a good chat, and then they arrange to meet in their business and they meet a different person.
Because you’ve changed the environment, there, there’s now stakes involved, et cetera, et cetera, whereas, you know, at the show it’s just a show. And, uh, I think that is something that’s overlooked a lot in no matter what we do. And we tend to focus on high stakes, but actually the, the better way, in my opinion, the better time to read people is when they feel comfortable.
You get a better read of them-
Ben Cardall: Right …
Bob Pointer: uh, where there is no stake, you know, where the stakes are a lot lower, uh, whether you are just in a conversation with them. Um, how do you feel about that?
Zach Elwood: Yeah, I agree. I, I, I think, uh, I mean, part of the thing I’ve been thinking about recently is like, I think, I think some people, as we know, some people are way too, uh, will promote the idea that behavior, you can do a whole lot with behavior.
They exaggerate the importance of behavior, but I think there’s also people that kind of minimize the idea that you could, uh, you know, get valuable reads. Mm. And I think that, that comes down to, like, the, a lot, some of those people are reacting to the people that promise too much with behavior. So it’s like, it’s like a lot of things.
There’s like this area where you can get, uh, you know, some, some valuable reads sometimes, and whether it’s actionable or not, uh, actionable or not depends on a lot of things. But yeah, I agree with you. It’s like we can get many valuable reads about people that can help us understand how to approach them or, you know, how to connect with them better or, or these kinds of things.
And I do think that the situation and, and the factors around them play such a big role in how they act. You know, the, the Traitors is a good… That show, The Traitors is a good example- Yeah … where the, the, people were using a read, I, I watched the second season of the British one, where people were saying like, “You don’t act the same way you acted that first day we met.”
And it’s like, that’s a totally different environment where you’re trying to be- Yeah … the most social person you can be, and the game hasn’t even started yet, so people are, like, much more friendly. And they’re like, “You’ve changed.” And it’s like, well, of course they’ve changed. It’s like the game’s started and their n- and their, and their true self is coming out more.
Maybe they’re not as social as they were on the first day, you know? Yeah. So it’s like the, there’s all these, like, contextual, uh- Yeah … factors that people are… If you, if you don’t understand that, you might make some bad reads of people. Yeah.
Bob Pointer: Yeah.
Ben Cardall: Uh, I mean, to, to, to the overstatement, uh, of behavior, uh, but people, uh, need a, a, a, maybe an accessible example sometimes.
How often do we hear, you know, like of the, of the dutiful buttoned-down husband at home, the second he goes out with the boys or the lads, he detonates and goes a bit mental? You know, the, the… There’s the kind of trade-off where the, uh, um, you know, the, the environment and the, the people therein certainly have that kind of interaction in the poll.
I just wanted to come back to the, the overstatement a- around what can be done with behavior. You know, the, the Mehrabian breakdown of the, uh, com- communication is this percentage of, of behavior, and I’ve heard silliness like it’s, it’s 90%, it’s 60%, it’s 70%. But like whatever kind of percentage you hear, if you learn to think about those numbers, you’re saying, okay, you could watch a film in a language you don’t speak, and from the behavior have 70% of the plot.
I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s silliness that way. Yeah. So it, it kind of sounds like what we’ve been saying so far is that, yeah, behavior is, i- is a, is a tool that we can use to learn, but it, it, it is equal if not more required to, to take care of how you think about the material and how you, uh, how you cultivate a, a, I don’t know whether you call it a mindset or a way of thinking or a process or, or, or whatever it is.
How important is that to, to the work that you do? Uh, whether that be at the table, uh, the investigative work or the analysis work that you’ve been doing since in terms of how you think about the material therein.
Zach Elwood: Hmm. Um, huh. Could you, uh… Could you maybe restate it in like one sentence? ‘Cause I, I feel- Sure … like I’m not totally getting the, um- Sure.
Ben Cardall: So-
Zach Elwood: The question. Yeah
Ben Cardall: We, we are, we are creatures of mood as, as human beings, and that affects how we think about information from… I, I can’t do a single sentence, just to put that out there.
I’m, I’m ter- Sorry I’m terrible.
Zach Elwood: Sorry to do that. No, no, no. I, I think I got your question, but I just wanna make sure.
Ben Cardall: No, no, safety first. I’ll use, I’ll use 12,000 words where, like, six will do. It’s, uh, I’m… It, it happens, I’m sorry. Um, but, uh, uh, so i- if we, if we, uh, uh, sit down across from a player that maybe we think he’s a bit cocky and he’s a bit of a show-off, is that gonna affect how we are, are- Oh
interacting with the information honestly? Uh, if we maybe sit down a- across f- uh, uh, from the, uh, from the, uh, the interview table and we are maybe tired or we maybe we don’t know enough about the person, is that then gonna affect how we think about the reads and the information that we take from that situation?
Zach Elwood: Yeah, and I should say, you know, to be clear, I’m not, I, I’ve, I have not done i- interrogations or anything like that. Like, my investigative work has just been, like, open source, uh, digital investigations. Still- So I can really only speak to the- Yeah, of course … the poker stuff really, and to, like, observations, like thoughts, random thoughts I have from observing other things.
But I’d say, I’d say for me, by and large, I mean, people talk about, like, the, the personalities of the people at the poker table, and that, I think it d- can definitely play a role. But I think by and large, you’re still gonna watch for some of these common sources of information, you know? Like, things that keep, that are just common amongst general population player pool, and you’re mainly just gonna be like, “Is this person…”
You know, first of all, uh, do they, do they vary their behavior a good amount? Because that’s a, that’s a glu- a clue in itself that, like, they’re imbalanced in some way. Like, are, or do they have a lot of, like, behavioral tics or movements or whatever it is- Yeah … from hand to hand, and it’s like, ’cause you’re n- you’re, you know, if somebody’s, like, completely stoic and not giving any- anything away, they’re probably not a good person to study.
So first you have to be like, “Is there some information that I might be able to glean here?” You know, are they staring one time in a hand at their opponent when they bet, and are they, you know, like, looking down another time when they’re, when they bet, right? Like, so looking for the, the variations. Um, and I di- I think while there can be, you know, personality things that play a role, like for example, a cocky person, a kind of aggressive person might be more likely to stare at someone when they’re bluffing- Yeah
versus, you know, most people I think do not do that. But I think, uh, by and large, you just, it comes down to, like, watching them and seeing what you find, and not, not making any assumptions about, like, this personality type’s gonna do this. ‘Cause I do think it, yeah, getting back to the complexity of behavior, it does, so many things, you know, vary so much, and there’s so many- Mm-hmm
factors at work that it can be hard to be like, “Oh, this person’s gonna, gonna be like this,” you know?
Ben Cardall: Uh,
Zach Elwood: yeah.
Ben Cardall: Yeah. I mean, I, I, I, I, I, I agree. The, the, the nature of, of how complex understanding behavior is, uh, is, i- It’s, it’s connected to how easily you wanna ratify any ambiguity that comes up around it.
Like, the- there, there are s- there are certain polarizing figures, uh, uh, that as soon as they are mentioned, people immediately form some kind of, some kind of view or opinion. Uh, if, if somebody mentions a, a mood or a quality that they don’t like, it’s already addressed towards a, a, a kind of a viewpoint or opinion about what that behavior means within the context.
So what, what, what I take away from conversations like these, and maybe, maybe Bob has some thoughts on this as well, that it’s, that it’s very important as a, as, as an operator, whatever situation you’re in, whether, you know, you’re on a, on a first date or, or at the poker table, or you’re selling a car or whatever it is, to make sure that, uh, that as you said, the, the formulation of those, those opinions, those, those, those beliefs, those, those, uh, ideals too early on without the proper kind of evidence beforehand, uh, too often do we ju- jump to a conclusion and then almost kind of backward rationalize our decision based on conforming to our own ideas so we don’t have to deal with the p- you know, the horrid potential of being wrong.
Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.
Ben Cardall: You know?
Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Yeah. You can make, you can make some bad assumptions, for sure. And I should say too, like I always go to my, my way to emphasize, it’s not like I think I have the one… You know, I, I, I don’t, I don’t think I’m, like, necessarily the best person in the world at reading tells. I think what I say in my books is, like, I think there’s many ways to approach reading people, and other people might have different things that they clue into that I might not be looking at.
I know sometimes when I’m studying footage or at the table, it’s like I’ll be like, “Oh, I haven’t even looked at that, that aspect of their behavior. I didn’t even think about it, but now that I’ve clued into it, it’s kind of interesting,” uh, or I see something. But just to say there can be many things, you know, I’ve always been very humble about, like, there’s many, many ways to study people-
Ben Cardall: Yeah
Zach Elwood: and I might not be focused on the best things at any given time, or I might not be, uh, there might be other things people notice that I don’t notice and these kinds of things, yeah. 100%.
Ben Cardall: Mm. Very stoic.
Bob Pointer: Yeah, the, the, um, things that I was just gonna mention is, um, when you see people talk about reading behavior, they focus, in my opinion, too much on micro behaviors, which I should even think that in the poker environment, micro signals are very hard to read.
Zach Elwood: Mm.
Bob Pointer: W- and it seems to me be counterproductive when there’s so many macro signals that you can actually hang your hat on. And, um, I don’t like the word baseline because people have misused baseline and have made it something it’s not. So I talk about that all individuals are individuals, and they’ll have their own repertoire of behaviors that they’ll, they’ll use.
And if you watch them over a period of time, you’ll be able to see what are those behaviors, and then you can, you can spot ones that are new and only seem to come up in… And then you’ll be talking about the ABC of behavior analysis. You know, what you see, what was the antecedents, what come be- came before it, and what was the consequence of it.
And once you know those three, you can more or less get a better read. It won’t be 100%, but then obviously if you see those… But what’s your thoughts on this sort of- Um, phenomenon, if you wanna call it that, of everyone’s looking for micro, micro- Yeah … this, micro that. I don’t think that that’s a, a good way to use your energy, personally.
Zach Elwood: Yeah. No, I, I, it’s something I’ve been thinking about, uh, recently because I’m working on this book, which is gonna be my effort to kinda sort out a lot of these questions that I have been struggling with myself. It’s like you’ve got these, yeah, these guys trying to read these, like, very small micro movements and stuff, and it’s like, yeah, I, I, I don’t think there’s, barring a few outliers, I don’t think there’s much to find there, especially because if we’re talking about, if we’re talking about real world, um, you know, interrogation settings, again, like separating it from the game, uh, scenario, I’d s- or even in the game scenario, yeah, to your point, it’s like I, I think it’s much more useful, uh…
Well, to give a specific example, I’ve been working with this high stakes poker player, can’t name him, uh, he doesn’t wanna be named. W- but we watch footage of streams, live, uh, poker streams, recordings that feature some of his opponents that he plays against sometimes. And yeah, when we find something useful, it’s usually not just a micro movement.
It’s like a f- it’s, it, it’s a, it’s a meta level thing of a, an aggregated series of things, or it’s multiple of the same behavior, right? So just to say the, the, the more granular and, and small and micro a thing it is, the less useful it is. The more you can, like, piece together a few clues that, like, point in the same direction, so like an aggregated thing, which to me, y- I was reading Tim Levine’s book, Duped, which is just a- Yeah
great book, and he talks about- Yeah … the difference between demeanor, which is kinda like this meta level thing of, like, how, how you present, how you might be described as being presented at some meta level. You know, like, you know, in an interrogation, is somebody, like, more aggressive seeming? Are they more anxious seeming?
Are they more controlled and smooth seeming? Like, these kinda demeanor related things. And like, yeah, that kinda thing, this meta level thing is, is so much more, um, yeah, meta level or aggregated is so much more meaningful to make a read. It doesn’t mean you’re always gonna make a read, obviously. It just means you’re much more likely to make a read than all these, like, focusing on, like, oh, his eyebrow went up or went, looked to the left, or like, you know, they did a small mouth movement at that moment, you know?
Um, but yeah, I should say too, it’s like sometimes you do You will occasionally get the micro movement in poker specifically, I think because it is this formalized environment where it’s like somebody’s making like a face that’s very associated with uncertainty- Mm … even for a second where they like make like a, um, you know, furrowed brow- Mm-hmm
before they bet, like looking upset even for a moment. Those can play a role. But just to say- Yeah … in, in real world and, and game scenarios, usually it’s like the more aggregated, uh, meta level stuff.
Bob Pointer: Yeah. Yeah, I was, uh, working with some people and, um, when we do training, they look at videos, but not videos like off YouTube.
We’ve recorded conversations and they look at them, and one guy was trying really hard and he came up with some things, some micro things that he’d seen, and I had to check back later and he was actually right, but he’d missed all of the cues that were there that we’ve, you know, that were so obvious there because he was concentrating too much on seeing these micro things.
Zach Elwood: Mm.
Bob Pointer: And I think we can… And, you know, it’s the bias, isn’t it? Uh, it’s a form of bias, uh, looking for w- you know, what’s, what’s… They think that there’s a hidden message here and they’re looking for it, whereas the reality is there in front of them if they just open their, their lens a little bit and made it wider.
And, uh, because, um, I can’t remember who said it, but you know, we’re n- we’re always on transmit. We’re always transmitting something, and, uh, most of it is easily recognizable, but we tend to focus on trying to find what isn’t because we think that’s more important. Yeah.
Zach Elwood: Well, that’s another, uh, I think that’s another…
The thing that I’ve been trying to sort out the last few months is, like, why do some people, including in, you know, some law enforcement people, people will say, “Oh, I think behavior is super valuable. Nonverbal behavior is super valuable.” And some people will be like, “No, I think it’s completely useless. I don’t use it.”
And I was trying to sort that out, but I think there, there’s a way that some people are talking past each other- Mm … in a few ways, I think. It’s like, A, most of us are, like, reading people’s behavior every day in- Mm … like a social sense. It’s like reading if somebody’s anxious or not, or, you know. So that, that, that helps explain why even some law enforcement people will be like, “Oh, it’s very valuable,” because they’re, they’re thinking about, they might be thinking about times when they just read, like, for rapport purposes, like, “Oh, I’m, I, th- this, this person’s not at ease,” you know?
And like, whether it played a role or not, it, it might’ve hel- it, it might’ve helped them adjust their approach to that person or whatever. So but that’s a far cry from like, “I’m gonna read them bec- to, to know if they’re lying or not,” right? Or know that they’re guilty. So it’s like these two dimensions of, like, the more social aspects which we do every day, and then like- Mm-hmm
the more, like, reading deception things, which is, like, very hard to do, I think, in, in a, in real world, uh, or, or anywhere, uh, spots because it’s a totally much harder because, you know, as we know, it’s high anxiety spots. Yeah. So- Yeah … uh, people can act a wide range of ways, including, you know, innocent people.
But that, I think that’s one of the ways that people talk past each other is because, yeah, we’re reading people every day, but that doesn’t mean we’re gonna, like, be able to tell if somebody’s lying or not i- i- in any sort of- Yeah … easy way from this stuff, yeah.
Bob Pointer: Yeah. Uh, just one thing before Ben is that, um, and that’s where we’ve got caught up in it.
Um, it shouldn’t be about looking for deception because as soon as you do that, you’re biasing yourself anyway.
Ben Cardall: Yeah.
Bob Pointer: Um, it should be just about building, uh, an environment, uh, a comfortable environment where that person’s, um, defense mechanisms maybe drop a little bit, and then it would be more macro when you saw those changes because you’ve got that connection with them.
What about you, Ben?
Ben Cardall: I, uh, uh, agreed. Agreed. That’s why I was, I was maybe cackhandedly trying to get to it earlier. Like, the, the way you think about your actions, um, it directly influences how you process information. Like, th- those, those two, uh, uh, law enforcement guys, “I only use human behavior,” “I don’t use human behavior,” both decisions arrived at through the, the di- digesting of information that came to them through behavior.
Uh, you know- Mm … it, it’s, it’s the, it’s the, the informative process around that helps you decide what you’re gonna do with it. And maybe, uh, and I say this not knowing what the answer is, if there even is one, maybe it’s, uh, uh, in reference to what we were talking about earlier in terms of the, the need for individuals to, to, to ratify ambiguity.
Like, our, our brain is just trying to do us a favor and stop us feeling discomfort, you know? So maybe it is that if we put all our, all of our eggs into the, the non-verbal communication basket or, or to the tells basket or to the deception detech- detection basket or whatever it is, it, it is, it is a vain attempt, innocent to some, capitalized on by, uh, uh, less than, uh, moral individuals, let’s say that.
Um, but to try and find something that, that works to journey through that environment so you can walk away with something. Maybe it’s, maybe there’s something to do with that kind of ambiguity there
Zach Elwood: Yeah, I think people really like certainty. We don’t like- Mm-hmm.
Ben Cardall: Yeah …
Zach Elwood: uncertainty. I think that applies in, in so many areas, and we’re, and we’re drawn to people that say that they can help us navigate these stressful uncertainty, uh, uncertain, ambiguous, ambiguous areas of our life or our job or whatever it is.
You know, we, we crave that certainty. Yeah. I think that’s where there can be, like, a kind of a cult-like thing that creeps in there because we, we want that certainty, and then somebody who tells us they have some certain thing about s- even, even some small domain-
Ben Cardall: Yeah …
Zach Elwood: they can easily grow into si- like, a cult-like figure because they’re, they’re like, “Oh, we’re…”
And then, then I’ll… While, while I’m at it, I’ll give you some certain takes on some, all these other areas, too, you know?
Ben Cardall: Mm. Yeah.
Zach Elwood: Yeah.
Ben Cardall: It’s, um- Yeah. I, I
Zach Elwood: know- So- I’m talking about Chase Hughes here. I might as well just, you know- Yeah, yeah … talk about the devil. Just to be t- just to be transparent. He pulled back the curtain.
Bob Pointer: I, I didn’t think, I didn’t think we’d get, we’d get through 45 minutes without mentioning him. Um- Yeah,
Zach Elwood: we gotta, we gotta name-drop him.
Bob Pointer: Yeah. He deserves it. I, I, um, I, I would… I’m sort of ambivalent, but I would say that, um, I would describe Chase Hughes as someone who has grifted for years, and I use that term deliberately because he is a grifter.
And he’s not the only one. There’s loads of them. They play on their background. Um, not everyone who’s been in the FBI is suddenly an expert in body language, just like no one, everyone in the police in the UK is an expert in body language. In fact, um, I, I fell into the, the, the, the category of we never did any work on non-verbal behavior.
Ours was all on words, ’cause words are evidence.
Zach Elwood: Words are, words are the most important thing. Yeah. It’s like that- Yeah. I mean, yeah. When people have asked me, ’cause I, we work on Poker Tells and I do my podcast, I’ve had many people ask me, like, “Oh, what, what do you recommend for, you know, reading people in the real world, the non-game world?”
You know? And I’m like, I, I would just focus on books that help you understand what they’re saying and, like, make logical deductions about what people are saying. ‘Cause, like, most people are just, like, barely focused on the deductions of what people are saying or what they’re not saying or- Mm … you know, the- these kinds of things about just analyzing what people are saying.
It, it’s like, it’s like why would you focus on the, the most ambiguous and least reliable source of information? But it, that, that’s the thing, getting back to it, it’s like that’s a very sexy idea is, like, we’re gonna- Yeah … read the, read the behavior. It’s not as sexy to be like, “I’m gonna think about what they’re saying and actually make some logical deductions.”
Like- Yeah … that’s not as sexy. It’s much sexier to be like, “I’m gonna read them and just s- get, look in their eyes or look at their twitch of their nose and read them.” That’s a much more exciting, sexy idea. Yeah. Right?
Bob Pointer: Yeah. I, I get that. And, um, yeah, uh, and, uh, well, yeah, the words, I mean, y- have you heard, have you read Elizabeth Stokoe’s book, Talk?
Zach Elwood: Yeah, I had her on my podcast actually, yeah
Bob Pointer: Yeah, she’s, she’s very good. Um- Yeah … and that, that is ’cause she uses sort of everyday speak. And I think when you, when you come down to it, people in this field who are what I would c- I would class as experts, um, uh, always, don’t, never talk about deception detection.
It’s much easier to see what that person’s truth is, and that truth may not be your truth. Um, and that’s when you go into an interview with someone, if there’s stakes involved, you’re looking at it from your perspective and they’ll have their perspective, and the stakes are in the middle. And what you have to do, in my opinion, is, is find a way to get a commonality of perception.
I wouldn’t say empathy, ’cause I don’t think if you’re with a serial killer you can get empathy with them, but you can get a commonality of perception where I’m not here to nail you to the wall. Um, and if you wanna talk, you can talk. And I think, um, so you just need to know what their truth looks like, not whether they’re lying or not.
That will come out, I think, in the course of what you’re doing anyway-
Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.
Bob Pointer: Mm-hmm … if you’re doing your job properly
Zach Elwood: Yeah.
Bob Pointer: I mean,
Ben Cardall: a- agreed. Uh, a- a- a- agreed. It, the, the, the more we, the more we talk about, uh, human behavior and its, and its frailties, I’m not even sure if that’s, that’s the, that’s the right word for it.
Um, it’s, it’s– it makes sense for us as operators in whatever field we’re in, whatever field it, to know what works and why, and what doesn’t work and why, because that, that’s, that helps you to understand the, the clarity of the information that you’re, that you’re reviewing in, in that, in that particular situation.
Dr. Richard Paul from the, the Foundation for Critical Thinking has nine standards of all thought, right? O- of, of which th- the main three, the big three are clarity, precision, and accuracy. And if we’re not dealing with that with our, with our own kind of technical p- specifications, then we can only be filtering everything through some kind of bias, through some, through some kind of situation.
Um, but I, I, I, I, I wanted to ask, though, specific to, uh, uh, the, the, the poker table and the, the maintenance of, uh, of, of good observation technique, whatever the right word is, is for that, uh, uh, relative to how you’re processing things up here and the, the need for the individual to have that kind of ease of, “I’ve seen him cover his cards in this way, therefore it means…”
You know, have that kind of silliness that, that, that abounds in that kind of situation, so that when people start to, you know, they put their, they put their glasses on, or they put their hats on, or they put their shiners on, or whatever it is. Uh, uh, is that largely a, a tactical move on behalf of the other players in your experience?
Is that their best to try and get you thinking, “Oh God, he’s gonna be unreadable now because I can’t see anything”? Uh, is it ch- changing the emotional stakes of, of how you process the situation?
Zach Elwood: Yeah, I think, uh, I mean, there’s definitely, uh, players that will wear certain clothings, including, like, you’ll see sometimes in high-stakes poker tournaments, people will be wearing scarves to cover up their pulse, you know, so you can’t see their- Mm
neck pulse.
Ben Cardall: Gotcha.
Zach Elwood: So people definitely do those things, obviously the glasses. Um, I think it, you know, uh, I, I, I think it all depends. Those, those can be justifiable things. I think, um, there are reasons people do that because they, they might know that they might have some imbalances in, in terms of, like, getting more-
Ben Cardall: Mm
Zach Elwood: getting the neck pulse pumping more when they’re bluffing or whatever it may be- Yeah, yeah … you know. Uh, or, you know, um, tenser looking eyes when they’re bluffing, right? That, uh, ’cause eyes are a big– The quality of the eye movements can be a big tell, um, can be, can be a reliable source of information for a lot of people.
Uh, but yeah, I, so I think there’s good reason people do that. And I al- I also think, though, getting back to, like, the interplay between people, it’s like when you, when you do that, you make the game more serious and make other- Mm-hmm … people play better too, right? ‘Cause they’re, you know- Gotcha … it’s like- Mm-hmm
so having a lighter, uh, demeanor can, can be better for, like, fostering a more fun- Mm … atmosphere, right? Like, I, I never wanted to wear sunglasses at the table ’cause I feel like people would be like, “Oh, he’s super serious, I’m gonna play super serious against him,” right? Yeah. Gotcha. So, like, e- every- everything you do in, in defense mode can have a, can have a, uh, can have a, a result, a resulting effect in how other people behave to you.
But, um, yeah, I think it’s understandable why people do that. But I, I also like to say, I, I tell people too, it’s possible to be way too scared about being read because by and large, I think, A, like I said, it’s, it can be for– If you’re making a concerted effort to be unreadable at the poker table, you’re probably, you know…
A- a- and if you know a bit about the common ways that information can leak out, uh, you’re probably gonna be pretty good at being unreadable. And I’ve had people tell me that, like, reading my books was mainly useful for defense because they realized that they were doing one or two small things that leaked a little bit of information.
Mm. So it was mainly useful for, like, ensuring that they were shutting down a f- you know, the, the leak some information. Mm. Uh, and yeah, so by and large, uh, a- and then, then B, you have the fact that most people, most poker players, even most good player, poker players aren’t really trying to read you that much.
So it’s like, it’s possible to be, uh, too paranoid in the same way that I think all these, you know, alleged behavior experts can make people overly paranoid about like- Yeah … “Oh, what am I giving away?” It’s like, no, you’re, y- you’re, you’re fine. You’re probably not g- giving away much at all because these guys are exaggerating what you can do with these things, so don’t, don’t be too worried about, like, being soul-read, as we say in poker.
You know, it’s, it’s probably not… Th- these people aren’t can’t do that like they, they claim they can do it, right?
Bob Pointer: Yeah. I, I think it’s, it’s every movement is an tell. Every, every aspect of behavior hasn’t got a m- hasn’t always- Mm … got a meaning. You know, we’re always transmitting, but how useful is what we’re transmitting?
It may
Zach Elwood: be- Es- especially in an, a anxiety producing-
Bob Pointer: Yeah …
Zach Elwood: environment. And, and I was gonna say- Yeah, totally … that’s the other, that’s the other big difference between ga- like a game like poker and an interrogation room, is like sometimes in a, if you get a really big poker hand, you can easily feel like ecstatic and be like, feel like, “Oh, I’m crushing this guy,” and you feel, you feel really good.
Like, that doesn’t really have a, a, an analogy to, like, being in the interrogation room. Like, whether you’re guilty or innocence, innocent, you’re not, like, suddenly being like, “Oh, I feel really happy in this spot.” Mm. “I’m gonna win a bunch of money,” you know? Like, yeah, you don’t, you don’t real- you don’t really have those, those swings like you can have in poker or other games, right?
So that’s another difference of an environment or the g- the situation there, yeah. Yeah.
Bob Pointer: I think that’s one thing that a lot of people who are involved in interviewing don’t understand. The, you’re, you’ve got people in a room. They’re, they’re there not by choice. Um, the rooms are set up in a certain way.
The psychological, um, pressure on you is so immense, and then they expect people to be truthful with them. And, and I, and that’s such an an- uh, an analogy. You know, like, um, it’s, it’s so not gonna happen. And, and then, uh, to compound that, because of the, um, the noble cause or whatever of the officer to get his job done, he starts to get angry about it.
And so what happens is that, that cross, you know, ’cause their behavior mirrors your behavior, so they start to get angry back or defensive back. And, um, the whole idea of, um, interviewing is to get a commonality of perception with the person at whatever level, you know, whether you’re just two professionals doing a job, or whether there is some sort of true sort of bond between you, um, as much as there can be in that environment.
Um, it isn’t about being hostile. Hostile doesn’t- That’s, yeah, when you- Get, you know, hostile will just make a person… And we all know people will admit to things they haven’t done just to make it stop.
Zach Elwood: Yeah, when you put it that way, it, it’s kind of amazing that people talk as much as they do, whether they’re-
Bob Pointer: Yeah
Zach Elwood: guilty, guilty or innocent. It’s kind of amazing that you have all this footage of interrogation footage. Yeah. I’m always amazed. It’s like, why do so many people, uh, talk? I don’t, I mean- Yeah … but it’s good that they do, but it’s just kind of amazing that so many people choose to, you know.
Bob Pointer: Yeah. I, I think there’s varying reasons for that, and it’s, it’s something to do with personality and how they feel, you know, how they feel at that time, and how they feel in that
Zach Elwood: environment.
They think they can, if they’re guilty, they think they can manage it. If they’re innocent- Yeah, yeah … obviously they have an incentive ’cause nobody thinks they’re gonna be, like, found guilty for something wrongly usually, you know, so yeah. And it, it makes sense. It’s just, like, you would think the, you would think the bad guys would be like, “I’ve seen enough of these, uh-
this coverage of the interrogation footage that maybe I should shut up,” but, um- Yeah, well- … still, still seems like they talk a lot still, so.
Bob Pointer: Yeah.
Ben Cardall: They can unburden- Ben, anything? … themselves. Yes. Um- Yeah … uh, uh, just, just as we’re coming, we’re coming to our time, it, it’s, it’s kind of a, a, a, about that witching hour where we, where we push for the, you know, the Jerry Springer’s final thoughts on, on, uh, hu- human behavior or, or, or rather the lack of human behavior, um, around, around the, the poker table.
Um, what, what would your final thoughts- Sure. Final thoughts … final thoughts be, uh, uh, on, on the topics from this evening?
Zach Elwood: Um, I, I, if I had to say something that mapped over to, you know, non-game real world scenarios, I, I do think, you know, again, I like to emphasize that reading tells in poker, reading behavior in poker is hard, just like it’s hard in the real world.
I just think it’s easier in the game world. You know, it’s, that, that’s what, that’s what my emphasis, uh, is, is. And I, I think it helps explain why I can be so critical of people like Chase Hughes and, you know, to a lesser extent, uh, Joe Navarro, uh, people who- Yeah … uh, I think try to make big claims about reading behavior and what you can do with it in the, in the real world, and why I can also be interested in poker tells and find them very interesting- Mm-hmm
and actionable, and why you can find me, like, basing a d- a video of me basing dec- a decision on a, a, a, a, a poker tell online, and how I can, like, do live analysis of poker videos, talking about my reads, you know, like with the hole cards covered up. But just to say, I see them as very different spaces. I think that helps explain, uh, why I can talk about them in such different ways, yeah.
Amazing. Bub?
Bob Pointer: Oh, for me, I just think it’s, um, it’s been a pleasure to have you on, Zach, and it’s, it’s gone so quickly, and we’ve gone… not got anywhere really. We’ve, uh, we’ve been talking for hours, so maybe- Do it
Zach Elwood: again …
Bob Pointer: maybe at some time we’ll have to do it again, yeah. Um, I think you’ve just illustrated to us that there is, um, there is another way out there.
There are people out there who are not noisy, who don’t feel the need to say how brilliant they are, that they’re number one or anything on YouTube to get followers, and, um, there are people out there who are doing it. And it’s all about, even with what we do, it’s about stakes. It’s just our stakes are integrity, and some others are monetary, I think.
Zach Elwood: Or we can just all start… We, all three of us can just start calling ourselves the number one behavior experts in the world, you know? Nothing’s stopping us, so-
Bob Pointer: We could- Just …
Ben Cardall: but I’d rather stick pins in my
Bob Pointer: eyes, if I’m
Ben Cardall: honest.
Zach Elwood: Yeah. Just an idea.
Ben Cardall: Totally. Well, we’ll-
Zach Elwood: Thank you guys for having me on …
Ben Cardall: we’ll finish it out Mortal Kombat style.
No, it’s been an absolute joy, sir. Um, so, uh, uh, uh, uh, guys, thanks- thank you very much for, to those that have been, that have tuned in live, uh, as always. Don’t forget that if you are tuning in live, you can get involved. Don’t, don’t feel like you’ve just gotta stand there pass- or sit there passively and watch the entire thing go by, drinking in all of the golden nuggets that are coming your way.
Um, make sure you to- you subscribe to the podcast as well, so we can bring you more episodes like this in the immediate future. And with that in mind, we’ll love you and leave you, and we’ll see- Can I
Bob Pointer: say one more thing, Ben?
Ben Cardall: Oh, sure.
Bob Pointer: One more thing.
Ben Cardall: Of course.
Bob Pointer: Uh, please, please, uh, tune into Zach’s podcast, The People Who Read People Podcast.
And I can say that knowing that once they’ve done that, they’ll realize how crap ours are. But ev- even though that’s, that, that’s the case- … I would, I would say, I would say please do that, ’cause they’re very enlightening. He has some, some great guests on, and in fact, we’re, we’re more or less, uh, following him and getting people that he’s had on ours.
Although our next one is, uh, is a bit different. We’ve got, um, a d- a doctor who’s, uh, started a divorce academy, who’s a s- a forensic psychologist. So, yeah. And that’s one you haven’t had, Zach, so there you go. We’ve beat you
Zach Elwood: to it. Yeah. Yeah. There’s, there’s plenty of fish in the sea. Thanks, Bob.