Discover more from Overcoming Bias
The subject of lying has come up here recently, with some tips on how to detect liars. But you’d expect that those whose job involves ferreting out liars, such as police officers or immigration judges, would be better at it than the rest of us. But this study claims that Swedish judges on the Migration Board (MB) are about as good at recognising the signs of lying as students:
Overall, the beliefs held by MB personnel were not more in tune with research findings on objective cues to deception than were the beliefs of the students. In addition, MB personnel often refrained from taking a stand concerning the relation between specific behaviours and deception; they exhibited substantial within-group disagreement […]
In fact, we all seem to make the similar stereotypical mistakes when judging lies, implying that we believe our lie detecting abilities are much better than they actually are:
[…] there is a lack of overlap between the cues research has shown to be associated with deception (objective cues) and the cues people believe to be associated with deception (subjective cues) […] Generally, these subjective cues to deception are indicators of nervousness. It seems as if people believe that a liar will feel nervous and act accordingly; however, far from all liars do […]
But is there any group that is actually good at detecting lies? Indeed there is: of convicted criminals. Why? The most likely hypothesis seems to be that criminals have much more experience in deception, and, crucially, have feedback: when they’re lied to, they generally discover it (to their cost) later.
So, unless you have a criminal record or a great experience in being lied to, the best is most definitely not to trust your gut.
More Lying
Poker players are an example of RH's class of "private professionals whose job is to detect lies," and I'm glad RF provided an example. I don't know what you mean by "criminologists," but I think that would fall under the category of public professionals, who do not seem to do very well, as RH said above, their livelihoods don't depend the quality of their work. I read in some secondary source, probably Gladwell, that although the median police aren't better than the median civilian, the proportion of really good police is higher. Perhaps Navarro is of this class. Or maybe that's not true, it's just easier to find good police because they get a reputation.
Re: criminals.Yes, the papers say they do better, but do they use studies designed without this objection in mind? I doubt it. Studies with half the people lying are probably cheaper than with 10%. An easy enough thing to check.
Joe Navarro, formerly of the FBI, went up against a psychic, a poker player (Annie Duke) and a few other people in a televised experiment to see who was best at detecting lies. Navarro and Annie were the best. If the question is "is there any group that is actually good at detecting lies?", my money is on the criminologists and poker players. After all, their livelihoods depend on it very directly.