March Newsletter: Tiny Words, HUGE Lies: Deception Detection in Seconds

Hi,

Welcome back to your monthly dose of truth-seeking, where we dive into the fascinating (and sometimes frustrating) world of how people's words can give them away.

I always say that the more words you have to analyze, the better your chances of getting a clear picture. And that's still true! BUT this month, I’m flipping the script. Sometimes, all it takes is a handful of words to uncover a whole lot of deception. It's like a linguistic magic trick, and I’m here to show you how it's done.

Love is Blind, But Words Aren't

Let's start with a little reality TV drama. Here's a quick clip from Netflix's "Love is Blind" – have a watch and see what jumps out at you.

Seriously, so much going on in such a short burst!

"I HONESTLY can't remember what happened." Ah, the classic "honestly" defense. Red flag alert! Why do people feel the need to tell us they're being honest? It's usually because they're trying a little too hard to convince us.

He also throws in "legit" in the same way. It's like he's saying, "Trust me, I'm telling the truth... seriously!"

Then there's the line, "This wasn't a relationship." Four little words, two big deception bombs! First, it's a negative statement. Instead of telling us what it was, he's focusing on what it wasn't. That tells us where his mind is at. We can pretty safely guess that "relationship" is exactly what he's trying to avoid admitting.

This is also a prime example of a personal definition. He's trying to control the narrative by saying, "In my book, it wasn't a relationship." Meanwhile, he goes on to describe something that sounds suspiciously like a relationship to most people (dates, hanging out...). He's giving himself a loophole, a way to justify his actions. "It wasn't a relationship in my head, so it's okay that I don't remember."

And then he gets even more slippery: "I think, maybe one date." Double dose of vagueness! He's creating wiggle room for himself. If it turns out there were multiple dates, he can say, "Hey, I said 'I think, maybe.' I wasn't being definite." Clever, but not very honest.

That's a lot of deception packed into less than ten seconds!

Want more? He follows up the dates and meetups with "and then didn't talk to after that." That little "and then" is a classic sign of skipping over important details. He's trying to gloss over what happened between the dates and the radio silence. It's fair to assume he's hiding the reasons why things ended.

He also drops some pronouns. He doesn't say "I didn't talk to her after that." He removes both himself and the woman from the sentence. Interesting, right? It's a way of distancing himself from the situation.

"And what I remember is I JUST ghosted her." The word "just" is a spotlight. He's trying to make us focus solely on the act of ghosting. This suggests there's something else going on, something he wants to downplay.

"I can't tell you why I ghosted her." Notice he says "I can't tell you," not "I don't know." That implies he does know, but he's choosing not to share.

Here's the breakdown: he's talking about ghosting, and then he says he doesn't remember what they talked about. Ghosting is about not talking, so he's clearly aware that there was some kind of interaction that led to the ghosting.

For such a short clip, it's a goldmine of deception clues! If I were that woman, I'd be running for the hills.

Reality TV might not be my cup of tea for entertainment, but it's a fantastic place to spot deception in action. If you ever need someone to break it down for you, you know where to find me!

"No Idea" = Big Suspicions

Here's another example of how just a few words can set off alarm bells.

Attorney Alan Jackson was asked, "What was that about?" and he replied, "No idea." "No idea" is a major red flag. We almost always have some kind of idea, even if it's vague. I'd been watching the court proceedings that day, and even I had an idea of what was going on.

My take? He was using "no idea" to create the impression that he was baffled and clueless, basically saying, "Don't ask me about this, I don't want to talk about it."

The next question was, "Did you pay the experts to testify in the first trial?" and he answered, "No, of course not." The "no" is a reassuring start, but "of course not" is overly convincing language. It's another attempt to shut down further questions.

When I saw that exchange, my deception radar went off. He was clearly sensitive about the subject, and his answers were designed to discourage discussion. I suspected deception.

The next time the case was in court, it was revealed that his side did pay the experts. However, there might be some personal definition at play here too. Jackson could technically say, "I said I didn't pay the experts, and I didn't. The defendant paid them." Tricky, tricky.

Short Stories, Big Lies

Knowing how to spot deception in just a few words is super useful in today's world of quick information bites. Instagram Stories, for example, fly by so fast that it's hard to analyze them.

But when I do get a chance to break them down, like this one from TV presenter Brendan Courtney, I'm often not surprised to find some deception lurking in that fast-paced format.

Here's the transcript:

"Last night, at nine o'clock on my way home with some food, crossing the traffic lights just outside my apartment... three lads pulled up in a car and jumped out of the car, and jumped on me and attacked me and punched me to the ground. Cut my f****g ear, a load of blood.

I'm lucky actually but I'm sore because they kicked me in the head a couple of times. An amazing American couple walking by started screaming and the manager from the place on the corner came out and the police were there in seconds, and they jumped in the car and drove off."

Here's what I noticed:

He starts by painting a picture of innocence: walking home with food, crossing the road, doing nothing wrong. It's a bit too eager to establish his victimhood.

The use of "lads" to describe the attackers feels oddly friendly and casual. It downplays the severity of the situation that follows.

The fact that he feels the need to tell us the couple were American is strange. It's completely irrelevant to the story. Why include it? It feels like an unnecessary detail designed to add detail to a story that is missing a lot.

The biggest red flags are in the timing of events. He says they "attacked me and punched me to the ground." The punch should be part of the attack, so why is it separate? Perhaps the attack was verbal, or perhaps something happened between the initial attack and the punch. Or maybe it didn't happen at all.

Then we have the police arriving "within seconds" (which is highly unlikely) and the attackers waiting around for the police before driving off. Why would they stick around? And if they did, why isn't there a description of what they did during that time? Again, it raises questions about the accuracy of the story.

Stay Tuned!

Want to become a pro at spotting deception, even when you only have a few words to go on? Keep an eye on your inbox, because I'll be sharing something I've been working on with you later this week!

Until then,

Jack