4.3 Bush & Cheney- Don't appear to be psychopathic. Don't get me wrong, its a sameful war, but doing something terrible doesn't make you a psychopathic, maybe just an asshole.
4.1 The current research on psychopathy suggests that it is a normally distributed variable, meaning they are not without conscience, just less (also means that everyone is by some degree psychopathic)
4.2 There doesn't appear to be strong evidence that psychopathy is associated with better lying. Perhaps more lying, but the research is yet to be done.
The most dangerous liars, IMHO, are the psychopaths, because they are at ease with lying.
Psychopaths are skilled at blaming others and are interested in being the center of attention no matter where they are. 5% of the population falls into this group.
@galinuas Wrong. Psychopaths like being the center of attention. It is all about their ego being inflated. On the otherhand, they feel no remorse for the hurt or harm they casue others.Bush and Cheney murdered more than 4,000,000 innocent people in the middle east and 3000 on 9-11 and sleep well at night They do not care about other people at all, only their own agenda. No contradiction.
@bozolazic You took the words right out of my mouth. People claim to want honesty, but throughout my life being honest with people has almost always put me in hot water. I like to think that I'm a very honest person though, despite losing many friends and creating a great deal of friction between myself and my family as a direct result.
Maybe I'm just a dick that people naturally dislike, but I try to be kind and open minded, as well as honest.
What do you do when you are talking to someone and realize the body language, facial gestures, eye contact and words all indicate you are being lied to? I recently met someone like this, but kept quiet. Do you say something, confront the person? Or just go along with. So obvious they were bull shitting me too..I just sat there & endured.. trying to be "nice"..It fucking sucks we live in a so-called "culture" where lying and deceiving fellow humans to 'get what we want' is the norm & encouraged
She mentions Henry Oberlander "could have undermined the entire banking system of the western world"...
Does this lie detecting 'genius' not realize the entire banking system of the western world IS, and HAS BEEN, one of the most fraudulent and deceptive of so called industries in human history ?!
Sorry...
Oberlander didn't have to undermine anything...
The banks and their puppet governments have already taken care of that.
I think you can learn more from what someone says than by body language. That talker is using rhetoric to sell something, using phrases like "scientific" and funny images of lying politicians to bring home a point. She is lying about the science, bending the truth, I can say that without nowing anything about the subject. Also we do not lie 200 times a day, we lie every time we open our mouth, we just don't remember they are lies anymore. Using this stuff for convicting people is stupid.
Can you suggest a study on the subject of the video? Your claim she doesn't really understand it is interesting and I'd like to hear more about your argument that you can learn more from someone by what he says rather than body language.
External research validity is often questionable in social research and I believe "lie spotting" is particularly riddled by it. You test these findings based on a large sample, yet in the field of lie-spotting, you attempt to convict one person of lying. That does not necessarily apply. You cannot assume everyone matches up to your large normal sample, because in that one instance you try to detect a lie, you're often in an abnormal situation.
She sounds paranoid. People are different. They react to questioning in different ways. I don't believe there is one set of mannerisms or facial expressions that can point out a liar from a truth-teller. What about people who are never sure of themselves? Or those who have poor social skills? If anything, I'd believe the best liars are the ones who can't be spotted. There's just too many generalizations here to take her seriously.
@punkgrl325 Compress any field of research down to 18 minutes and thats what you will get. You don't believe in one set of mannerisms or facial expressions that "dicktates" what some person is feeling/thinking, yet smiling is universal. Do you really believe the best liars are those who can't bes spotted? Wow, groundbreaking.
@punkgrl325 I don't think that the Clinton example was good either, or any of them really. Were there ever any real proof that he was with her? Has he come out and said that they were? Untill that day, it is still uncertain and should not be used as an example of a liar. And by saying this I am not putting up a defense for him.
@punkgrl325 I agree with you, but I bought her book because I find this subject fascinating and it's much, much more in depth and covers so much more than her 20 minute speech. She even says this about half way through.
I'm just saying, I'm not trying to contradict you because I agree with you about the speech. :)
@punkgrl325 the thing is though, MOST (id say at least 95%) these "broad generalizations" are correct. Because the physiology and anatomy of people is the same. and unlike you, she also has data and research showing her point, while you are going off of assumption.
@TwoTekah I can't say whether they're correct or not because I'm not a mind reader. Where'd the 95% come from? I don't believe I made any assumptions really. The truth of the matter is that when people are interrogated (speaking from personal experience) it can be a harrowing process and through this method, those who lack confidence can be pinned to be liars when they aren't. I also believe peoples' physiology varies to an extent, but you're entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
@punkgrl325 except there are ways to tell someone who lacks confidence from a liar (easily). and the 95% came from the fact in science, 5% error is too much to have a fact. So since this is a scientific fact. It holds true. And people physiology (muscle wise) in the face, has very very low variation. And it isnt an opinion.....it is a FACT....this is a science.
You wouldn't be able to spot an actual liar thanks to stuff like this. The people who are being honest are constantly pegged as liars meanwhile the charming cunning smiley fakes are never called out for lying.
Someone isn't lying if not showing emotion. This is mumbo jumbo. It's usually those who throw in theatrics and get overly emotional who are fibbing.
What about autistic people who are honest but don't show emotion while talking?
Training people to spot lies is fine but amateurs should be housted out of the field as their power on other people's lives in far from negligible. Think job interviews, criminal investigations and other cases where your word is being put into doubt.
Hmm, I find I lie to protect other people a lot more than I do for myself, I'm a male. I wonder where that statistic about men vs women came from. Not to say an anecdote compares to a study, but it feels very instinctive.
But to make this clear incase you misunderstand it. Yes babys dont have cognitive ability to answer the question. But that doesnt change anything. Lets invent the concept of 9 dimensional magical lamps. You had no belief in this although you didnt know the concept. Same goes for babys. No belief in god can be passive if you dont know the concept. You dont have to ask the question. Thats why it is a default position. Its not an active position although it can be. Thats where materialism comes in.
@skotten90 You assume atheism is somehow neutral. But atheism in itself has a definition that must be understood cognitively as a statement in the negative about belief in God. Babies are instinctual until their minds develop. Atheism and theism are cognitive choices. The only neutral position is one devoid of thought. The mere introduction of magic lamps assumes pre-defined objects and that the hearer will comprehend it upon hearing it. Positions of belief require comprehension & free will.
The funny thing is, people pointed out the flaws in Bill Clinton's denial after it was proven that he did in fact sleep with Lewinsky. What they fail to realize is that there are people, hired by the White House, to make these speeches for the President.
I don't know if this is the talk where she refers it. I've seen the video but I think it's not in this video. When words don't match the body language, there is a formal term for it. Does anyone know what it is? It is something like "desynchronization" but I'm not sure.
If anyone knows or listens to her saying it in the video, please inform me.
With this information being available to anyone, we are not only creating lie-spotters (apparently everyone now is a Cal Lightman), but we are also creating better liars. For they learn to recognize their giveaways. I learned A LOT on how to lie better reading Pease, Meyer and specially Ekman.
This information should be kept among interrogators and people who do this for a living.
I think Pamela knows this and still chooses to talk about it for personal recognition. And she says nothing new.
@Krahl123 But then it all depends on how the person has asked the question in the first place. There has been a few incidences when someone has asked me a question and they appear to have looked at my face for any signs of lying, it's made feel uncomfortable and i've laughed when in fact i was telling them 100% truth.
this was interesting but she focused on verbal and behavioral cues of an individual via direct contact--but actually when you focus on the visual imagery in her slides it provides an interesting revelation about the speaker--where the slides subconsciously placed on behalf the speaker? or was it intentional?
@JPVeigaaaa it's a reference to psychology and research studies. simply, a person may reveal either an affinity or distaste towards an image or concept. with that knowledge the creator of a slide show for a presentation can mask his or her affinity or distaste for an image or concept or manipulate subject matter to encourage the viewer to believe the truth of the subject being presented. :) The video is open for your personal interpretation or insight regarding the speaker and subject.
@afar1 An atheist doesn't believe in God. I believe in God, just not religion. The Bible I think is a folk tale. The 10 commandments don't make any sense... well some of them.
@InfestedChris Clearly you've never read the Bible, nor could you. You're one of those loud-mouthed idiots that pontificate bullshit about something you clearly know nothing aboout by parroting the atheist party line.Go ahead and try me.
@InfestedChris I bet you've done zero research on it and just came to that conclusion because you simply don't believe in God. But guess what, it's more accurate than your history books... ask any Historian.
@ThisMemory Yes... ask any historian ... you know ... all those doctorate holding professors who teach from ... what was it again? the bible? OH THATS RIGHT ... history books
@Th3Shadow0fDeath I don't get what you're implying... but I'm just saying the Bible is more accurate than a history book in school. And if you know anything about history you know this is true whether you believe in God or not.. So please think before you speak
@skotten90 unless you have actually studied deeper into the existance of a god, you would not know. there is actually more truth found in the bible than any scientific descoveries made. look it up. i would really urge you to look into the big question of who created us and why we are here, a lot of people just throw it away and go with the flow, however i think a question as important as that should really be though about, not left until your death bed.
@JordanGuitar11 Oh boy.... Why oh why do you believe this??!! Has the bible invented cars? Has the bible invented airplanes? Has the bible invented rocket ships? Has the bibble invented the Hubble telecope? Has the bible invented the computer? Has the bible explained quantum mechanics? Has the bible explained general theory of relativity? Has the bible discovered evolution? No and the bible have never and will never be taken serious as a source for science. You know.. faith. absence of evidence.
@JordanGuitar11 Troll alert. No the bible is not taken serious by any scientist with credentials. Its a book of fairys. No healthy person would ever consider the bible as a source for evidence.
“Scientists love mysteries. They love not knowing. That's a key part of science. The excitement of the learning about the universe. And that again is so different than the sterile aspect of religion where the excitement is apparently knowing everything, all though really knowing nothing.” Lawrence Krauss
@skotten90 thats really stupid because even einstien said the probability of a god was very high. your quote is quite indirect by the way. not sure why it was used in the context that you were trying to portray.
@JordanGuitar11 The point in the quote is in the 5 last words.
Einstein was neither an atheist or theist. He thought that there might be a probability that a deistic god ---->could<--- exist. Einstein also rejected that a personal god exist. So no of your arguments favor any personal god. Or a deistic god for that matter.
@skotten90 Declarative hyperbolic statements that you make concerning the Bible do nothing to intelligently discredit it or Intelligent Design or Biblical Creationism. Many serious scientists throughout history and today take the Bible seriously, and must take the Christian worldview of preimmanent logic and constancy of law to conduct science in the first place. Plenty of credentialed scientists reject Darwinism and macro-evolution. Appealing to a consensus of scientists is not science.
Unfortunately Lawrence Krauss and many atheists are deluded into thinking they conduct science free from their own personal biased beliefs. But they are constantly appealing to religious beliefs of materialist and naturalist philosophy. Beliefs without evidence, and a priori. Thus scientific data is constantly being interpreted and forced to fit the framework of their own worldviews. And these they declare to be 'facts' but are merely interpretations to suit their religious beliefs about origins
@skotten90: I beg to differ: Sargon of Assyria is mentioned by name but once in the Bible record. (Isaiah 20:1) In the early 1800’s this Biblical reference to him was OFTEN DISCOUNTED by critics as of NO HISTORICAL VALUE. However, from 1843 onwards, archaeological excavations uncovered the ruins of his palace @ Khorsabad & the inscribed records of his royal annals. The foregoing shows that the Bible can be a source of evidence a priori of knowledge (in this instance, of archaeology), eh?
@skotten90 How is this an argument? Technology is invented by human beings assuming a standard of universal law and constancy exists. Theism and more accurately the Christian worldview provides a basis for these constants that atheism does not. Atheism borrows that worldview of constant law and supreme logic from Christianity but divorces it from the Lawgiver, who is God the creator. Man creates and imagines and thinks thoughts after God who endows him with intelligence and rationale.
@jdnation Atheism is not a world view. It is a lack of belief in god. Period. +90 % of scientist members of NAS, are atheists. Left over are the theists who do not incorporate their useless and unrealistic world view to their specialties(I hope not). Im sorry to destroy your warped reality but theism was invented by humans to explain unknown things. Science and technology is superior to the popular stone age myths known today(Like the bible, quran etc.)
@skotten90 Atheists do not simply not believe in God. They also believe in materialism, an assumed unprovable religious worldview that they use to try to explain the origins of life and the universe and thus try to convert people to believe in this faith. Once 99% of scientists believed in geocentrism, so appealing to a consensus of scientists is never proof of anything. Human beings are always biased in whatever they do, it is impossible to separate any worldview from daily life and action.
@jdnation You should consider looking up atheism, as i can see you have no clue what it is what so ever. Or you are just a typical blind believers who likes to shout out conspiracy theories just so atheists and scientists are on your stupidity level, so you have an excuse for believing in bullshit farytales. Be a little skeptic of what you see and hear. See this /watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=channel_video_title and /watch?v=S-BQVmvulmQ
@skotten90 Atheism is simple. Those who deny God. But atheists are also by necessity materialists. Because in the absense of God they must come up with an explanation for the existence of matter, biological life, universal order, intelligence etc. They must do so to justify their position of 'a-theism.' Otherwise to call onself an atheist is simply an empty statement. This is an obvious and self evident thing. Everybody holds a worldview which defines themselves and their actions.
@jdnation Btw, you have one last chance to improve or else you can fuck off. Atheism is like not collecting stamps. Its not a world view like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Is this to hard for your "impressive" logic to grasp?
@skotten90 Atheists who proudly proclaim their skepticism are also the most afraid to apply skepticism upon their own beliefs. Atheism is indeed a worldview. By denying God, athiests then seek to interpret the existence of life, scientific data and morality to suit their position. They VIEW the WORLD through the lens of their assumed paradigm: The claim that God does not exist, that all things exist due to purely materialist causes, and thus our lives function unrestrictingly however we like.
@jdnation You are like a robot. You cant think for your self. You hear things from your friends and familiy, and then you believe it whole heartedly. Atheists dont deny god. They just dont believe in supernatural things without evidence. Its typical skepticism which led to atheism. To believe in god is not more justified than believing in ghosts, tootfairy, santa claus, unicorns etc. And you are of course skeptical in those things right? Do so with your religion, as there is no evidence for that
@skotten90 It is not wise to jump conclusions, especially about others,. Healthy skepticism should be applied to all things, even atheism. Atheism isn't just a statement made by itself. It also claims things it cannot prove to justify its position. Such as the materialist origins of the cosmos, of matter, of life from non living chemicals, of genetic information gain in order to 'evolve' etc. Are you certain it is not you who is simply believing what you've been told to believe in? Or want to?
@jdnation Afraid of applying skepticism for our "beliefs" ? Skepticism leads to atheism, if you are a real skeptic. Its nothing more than a lack of belief in god because there is absolutely 0 evidence for his existence. If people also are materialist then thats there situation, but it has nothing to do with atheism in generel. We dont have to explain anything. Its you who claim things to be true not us, so its up to you to prove your statement not us. Atheism is simply a default position.
@skotten90 Skepticism about materialist claims, macro evolution etc. has also led others to abandon atheism. It works both ways. A lot depends on the person's state of mind and the information available to them. Atheism is not a default or neutral position. It also makes materialist claims to justify itself and convince others of its position and challenge theists. And these claims must likewise be explained & proven, otherwise in the end it is also a religious faith with man in place of God.
@jdnation What? Are really this stupid? There is tons of evidence for the origin of life and cosmos. 0 for intelligent design and 0 for god, jesus, allah and the 3000 other gods we have dismissed. But of course your god MUST be more true than the others!!! (Even though its just a myth from the stone age, but you still believe it). Everything we see on earth and in the universe has a naturel and materalistic cause.
@skotten90 Then prove it. But this is impossibly scientifially because 1. The alleged events of the past happened before there was anyone to observe it, so you have no observable evidence, just imagined ideas. 2. You do not have the means to experimentally recreate the past events you imagined happened. 3. You have no hypothetical ideas to even explain the existence of matter from nothing, order from nothing, biological life from non-living material, why cognition and non-physical concepts exist
@jdnation And btw fuck off with your stupid self proclaimed difinitions of atheism. Check dictionaries before you start. Oxford defines atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods. No more, no less. Adding more to your view and understanding is up to every individual. It has nothing to do with atheism. Every born child is an atheist. They have no belief in gods. They arent materialists or anything for that reason? Or do have a stupid comment to throw at me now?
@skotten90 I didn't define atheism differently. I said atheists ARE ALSO materialists. Just as a Christian can be a Republican; an agnostic, a Marxist. You deny God exists & you subscribe to materialist philosophy about existence & life to tell us 'why.' Otherwise your declaration of being an atheist has no intellectual support. Also your declaring new borns being atheists is unfounded. They have no cognitive ability to even consider such a question. Unless you are saying atheists do not think?
@jdnation Lets just call it this time. You dont know what athiesm is. Have you heard of weak and strong atheism? Most atheists are weak atheists. Also called agnostic atheism. Strong atheism is not justified unless when we talk about a personal God, which of couse dont exist other than in peoples minds. Fairy tales is not evidence(Bible, Quran etc.) Weak atheism is the default position. If you answer no to "Are you an theist, and do you have a belief in god?" Then you are an weak atheist.
@skotten90 I fail to see how I've been wrong. Again, whenever you make definitive statements such as "God, of course, dont exist, except in people's minds, are fairy tales" you have to explain why and provide strong evidence to the contrary. Not arbitrary statements. Both sides must. I know of categorizations in agnosticism ie 'Agnostic theists' and 'Agnostic atheists.' Both claim that knowing if God exists is unknowable, but will lean towards one side they personally consider most probable.
@jdnation The God concept was invented by humans. When there was a time when this concept did not exist, everybody was a weak atheist. Its sounds stupid yes, but the word it self should not even exist. It is just necessary in times where a god concept exist in many peoples heads. The last question in my previous post can be answered with no for every born child. They dont know and they dont believe in god. You are talking about strong atheism. I dont know if there is a deity, but i dont belive.
@skotten90 Those are assumptions based on materialist beliefs about origins. According to Creationism God was the very first thing man came to know upon being created whole and entire & God revealed Himself personally to man. As we observe today, new children born into the world will not posess thought or be fully capable of comprehending the topic until they reach the age of reason thus being intellectually neutral, neither theist or atheist. But intelligence is required for meaningful debate.
@jdnation So lets start all over. The burden of proof is on you. Not me, since i make no certain claims about the origin of life, earth and cosmos. I make no hypothesis or concepts to explain the origin everything. Im skeptic and agnostic when it comes to things we dont know about yet. Though i am atheist when it comes to silly things like unicorns, sky daddys, leprechauns. But im agnostic in the pantheistic area. But it seems very unlikely for such a thing to exist. It is contradictory it self.
@skotten90 The burden of proof lies on us both. Even making statements in the negative about creationism, the bible, religions etc. must be followed with arguments to justify skepticism just as one must justify their reasons for belief in God. And remember that skepticism is not an end in itself. It must go on to pursuade the skeptic to seek out the truth in a matter as best he can. Likewise, though you say you make no claims, in reality those claims are subconsciously justifying your position.
@jdnation But you should be skeptic of everything. Even science. You shoud check it out for your self. See it before you believe it. But of course you would deny anything im telling you becuase you WANT to believe in a god and you want to believe it is justified. Its called wishful thinking. Its hurt so bad that your god is on thin ice. And you want to make up for it by comming up with conspiracy theories about everybody qestioning your stupid beliefs.
@skotten90 I encourage you to do likewise. One's wants and wishes will always be a part of this equation. Some desire God. Some do not. Both are biased. No one exists without it. It will affect their emotions, their approach, their honesty, and their willingness to be open-minded. The trick is in recognizing that bias & your limitations & what you do not know; subjecting oneself to honest scrutiny. In the end, death is inevitable and comes to all equally. So humble thyself while life allows.
@jdnation So if you were a skeptic you would'nt believe in fairytales. You would want to see things for your self. Educate your self and seek the truth. If we lived in a designed world and universe, and there was cold harded facts that is was designed every true skeptic would believe what the data says. Likewise what we see today. That the origin of cosmos and earth has a natural cause. But of cause you arent a true skeptic like me. You believe in things in absence of evidence.
@skotten90 I don't believe in fairy tales. Just because you wish to label soemthing a fairy tale doesn't automatically make it so. You'd have to thoroughly explain why. Furthermore if you are going so far as to have someone consider your worldviews of existence, the origin of life etc. and declare it factual, then you would likewise have to prove them just as rigorously, otherwise what you have are simply stories peppered with science fiction ideas that you happen to personally believe in.
@jdnation And lets make this clear. I have NEVER claimed anything factual about the origin of the universe and life. But science has very much postive evidence for this. There is no alternatives right now to explain the origin. Creationism is not a theory. There is so emperical demonstrable evidence for that. Just a bunch of claims with now hold in it.
@skotten90 In denying that the bible, religion, God, etc. are wrong, untrue, or that babies are defaultly atheists because they never ponder the question etc. you have made declarative statements while trying to pursuade others that these are factual things either evidentially or in context. I would also declare the exact opposite, that science, and the fact that there is logical order in the universe, in mathematics, in thought, are proofs of a source of preeminent logic that orders it all.
I'm sure she understands a lot about lying but everything in this talk is very obvious and extreme. For instance the woman who killed her daughter pitted against the woman who did'nt.... Reactions manifest themeselves differently in different people.
If I killed someone and was pleading not guilty I would probably cry my eyes out in fear. Not to mention the fact that guilty people can completely convince themeselves that they are innocent.
@timmy317317 It's part of a larger set of tools that can be used. It is not, despite some sensationalist youtubers belief, a universal truth. Nor is she claiming as much. This is why our courts are evidence based and not based off of intuition or arbitrary measurements.
@mmx25 It's titled "How to spot a liar", implicating the answer to that question is in the video. Viewers will undoubtedly use the given indicators as factual and directly put them to use in for example job interviews and the like. It's a shit talk, with shit results.
You all are idiots for trying to show off. She clearly says, these are just red flags, alone they mean nothing, but you look for clusters of them. Which is what professional interrogators have known since the study of criminal psychology was invented.
She says lie spotters are not people who just watch Lie To Me, but pretty much everything she talked about is demonstrated on that show. Not much more informative really.
It's easy who tell who lied after knowing the truth... (example:Clinton, Nixon, etc)
leotaku2006 15 hours ago
4.3 Bush & Cheney- Don't appear to be psychopathic. Don't get me wrong, its a sameful war, but doing something terrible doesn't make you a psychopathic, maybe just an asshole.
1066voodoo 1 day ago
4.1 The current research on psychopathy suggests that it is a normally distributed variable, meaning they are not without conscience, just less (also means that everyone is by some degree psychopathic)
4.2 There doesn't appear to be strong evidence that psychopathy is associated with better lying. Perhaps more lying, but the research is yet to be done.
1066voodoo 1 day ago
1. There is little scientic evidence to suggest that there are consistent cues to deception (there are a bunch of meta-analyses)
2. Some people smile when their nervous (but those people where crazy)
3. The person who said "scientific fact" in the previous comments is an idiot, as they clearly do not understand the scientfic method.
4. People that do not understand psychopathy need to stop commenting on it (and making websites saying that their ex is a "psychopathy")
1066voodoo 1 day ago
I think I have to read her book
andreatrv 1 day ago
I don't believe this. It's all lies! :-)
paulgseng 2 days ago
To quote Homer Simpson: "It takes two to lie, one to lie, one to listen" LOL
NatalieSpa 2 days ago
LOL it's funny when the mom laughed! XD
chikkachinijohannady 5 days ago
Lie to me!
4est242 2 weeks ago
One of the best TED talks I have seen so far.
johnmeighan3544 2 weeks ago
Brilliant lecture
kristinmidnight 2 weeks ago
The most dangerous liars, IMHO, are the psychopaths, because they are at ease with lying.
Psychopaths are skilled at blaming others and are interested in being the center of attention no matter where they are. 5% of the population falls into this group.
390bullitt1968 2 weeks ago
@390bullitt1968
cheney silverstein blair...............
horse69outside 2 weeks ago
@390bullitt1968 The center of attention? If they can't feel emotions they would feel nothing from being at the center of everything.
galinuas 1 week ago
@galinuas - Thanks for the heads up doctor.
390bullitt1968 1 week ago
@390bullitt1968 All I'm saying is that your statement is contradictory.
galinuas 1 week ago
@galinuas Wrong. Psychopaths like being the center of attention. It is all about their ego being inflated. On the otherhand, they feel no remorse for the hurt or harm they casue others.Bush and Cheney murdered more than 4,000,000 innocent people in the middle east and 3000 on 9-11 and sleep well at night They do not care about other people at all, only their own agenda. No contradiction.
390bullitt1968 1 week ago
I do my best to not lie.The problem is...people don't like it.Which probably explains why I only have a couple of friends.;)
“The right to search for the truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be the truth.”
― Albert Einstein
bozolazic 2 weeks ago
@bozolazic You took the words right out of my mouth. People claim to want honesty, but throughout my life being honest with people has almost always put me in hot water. I like to think that I'm a very honest person though, despite losing many friends and creating a great deal of friction between myself and my family as a direct result.
Maybe I'm just a dick that people naturally dislike, but I try to be kind and open minded, as well as honest.
gamegloss 1 week ago
oh my god that smile scared the shit out of me. Seriously, scared the hell out of me. That interviewer needed to run!
RedLifeSaver 2 weeks ago
If a person is a psychopath, then they have no conscience.
Therefore they feel no shame, guilt or fear. So there won't be ANY "tells" when they're lying.
mikelorenz121 2 weeks ago
@mikelorenz121
rumsfeld
horse69outside 2 weeks ago
NO IM NOT!!!
alexicon89 2 weeks ago
What do you do when you are talking to someone and realize the body language, facial gestures, eye contact and words all indicate you are being lied to? I recently met someone like this, but kept quiet. Do you say something, confront the person? Or just go along with. So obvious they were bull shitting me too..I just sat there & endured.. trying to be "nice"..It fucking sucks we live in a so-called "culture" where lying and deceiving fellow humans to 'get what we want' is the norm & encouraged
rg2027x 4 weeks ago
Pretty sure, she is 'lying' about Henry Oberlander.
borderm3 4 weeks ago
Wait a minute....
She mentions Henry Oberlander "could have undermined the entire banking system of the western world"...
Does this lie detecting 'genius' not realize the entire banking system of the western world IS, and HAS BEEN, one of the most fraudulent and deceptive of so called industries in human history ?!
Sorry...
Oberlander didn't have to undermine anything...
The banks and their puppet governments have already taken care of that.
johnnycaboosehead 1 month ago
good looking woman
699backstab 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
good looking woman
699backstab 1 month ago
good looking woman
699backstab 1 month ago
Ah! This video has made me a much better liar. Thank you.
(Evil laughter)
BlizBob 1 month ago
I think shes lying
MetalGod629 1 month ago 15
I think you can learn more from what someone says than by body language. That talker is using rhetoric to sell something, using phrases like "scientific" and funny images of lying politicians to bring home a point. She is lying about the science, bending the truth, I can say that without nowing anything about the subject. Also we do not lie 200 times a day, we lie every time we open our mouth, we just don't remember they are lies anymore. Using this stuff for convicting people is stupid.
truthseeker83 1 month ago
@truthseeker83
Can you suggest a study on the subject of the video? Your claim she doesn't really understand it is interesting and I'd like to hear more about your argument that you can learn more from someone by what he says rather than body language.
instert1name 1 month ago
A natural liar can never be caught.
hoboX10 1 month ago
External research validity is often questionable in social research and I believe "lie spotting" is particularly riddled by it. You test these findings based on a large sample, yet in the field of lie-spotting, you attempt to convict one person of lying. That does not necessarily apply. You cannot assume everyone matches up to your large normal sample, because in that one instance you try to detect a lie, you're often in an abnormal situation.
brandonpsychology 1 month ago
I felt that there may be quite a fair bit of hindsight bias in the examples provided.
brandonpsychology 1 month ago
@RealityGrapple Ah, thanks for clearing that up (:
B1aDK 1 month ago
clinton is a bad example as he had speech writers.
Realjhad 2 months ago
thanks for making me a better liar
jeffXedge 2 months ago
I don't believe her.
PassionataSalsa 2 months ago
She sounds paranoid. People are different. They react to questioning in different ways. I don't believe there is one set of mannerisms or facial expressions that can point out a liar from a truth-teller. What about people who are never sure of themselves? Or those who have poor social skills? If anything, I'd believe the best liars are the ones who can't be spotted. There's just too many generalizations here to take her seriously.
punkgrl325 2 months ago 3
@punkgrl325 Compress any field of research down to 18 minutes and thats what you will get. You don't believe in one set of mannerisms or facial expressions that "dicktates" what some person is feeling/thinking, yet smiling is universal. Do you really believe the best liars are those who can't bes spotted? Wow, groundbreaking.
B1aDK 2 months ago
@B1aDK She didn't really use very good examples either. That woman who murdered her kids couldn't convince a rock imo
Also many people already believed Clinton was lying as well. He wasn't particularly good at it either.
punkgrl325 1 month ago
@punkgrl325 I don't think that the Clinton example was good either, or any of them really. Were there ever any real proof that he was with her? Has he come out and said that they were? Untill that day, it is still uncertain and should not be used as an example of a liar. And by saying this I am not putting up a defense for him.
B1aDK 1 month ago
@punkgrl325 I agree with you, but I bought her book because I find this subject fascinating and it's much, much more in depth and covers so much more than her 20 minute speech. She even says this about half way through.
I'm just saying, I'm not trying to contradict you because I agree with you about the speech. :)
MrHughes89 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@punkgrl325 the thing is though, MOST (id say at least 95%) these "broad generalizations" are correct. Because the physiology and anatomy of people is the same. and unlike you, she also has data and research showing her point, while you are going off of assumption.
TwoTekah 1 month ago
@TwoTekah I can't say whether they're correct or not because I'm not a mind reader. Where'd the 95% come from? I don't believe I made any assumptions really. The truth of the matter is that when people are interrogated (speaking from personal experience) it can be a harrowing process and through this method, those who lack confidence can be pinned to be liars when they aren't. I also believe peoples' physiology varies to an extent, but you're entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
punkgrl325 1 month ago
@punkgrl325 except there are ways to tell someone who lacks confidence from a liar (easily). and the 95% came from the fact in science, 5% error is too much to have a fact. So since this is a scientific fact. It holds true. And people physiology (muscle wise) in the face, has very very low variation. And it isnt an opinion.....it is a FACT....this is a science.
TwoTekah 1 month ago
You wouldn't be able to spot an actual liar thanks to stuff like this. The people who are being honest are constantly pegged as liars meanwhile the charming cunning smiley fakes are never called out for lying.
Someone isn't lying if not showing emotion. This is mumbo jumbo. It's usually those who throw in theatrics and get overly emotional who are fibbing.
What about autistic people who are honest but don't show emotion while talking?
Lisaannjoel 2 months ago
It's a myth that you can't fake a Duchenne smile (the one with eyes). It's easy with practice.
cuntscab555 2 months ago
these TED talks are pretty addicting....is it unhealthy?
Xlr8legacy 2 months ago
lies are but far more efficient! are world would not function on truths!!! care to differ, tell everyone the truth.
jceja87 2 months ago
she has huge ears. Thats the truth
Super1080pGaming 2 months ago
Training people to spot lies is fine but amateurs should be housted out of the field as their power on other people's lives in far from negligible. Think job interviews, criminal investigations and other cases where your word is being put into doubt.
jimapoulson 2 months ago
no really, THANKS!!
lightbow0 2 months ago
liar!!
lightbow0 2 months ago
The fact that the mom who shot her kids can't lie convincingly might have more to do with her being insane than with her being just a bad liar.
Sylocat 2 months ago 30
Hmm, I find I lie to protect other people a lot more than I do for myself, I'm a male. I wonder where that statistic about men vs women came from. Not to say an anecdote compares to a study, but it feels very instinctive.
tipoomaster 3 months ago
But to make this clear incase you misunderstand it. Yes babys dont have cognitive ability to answer the question. But that doesnt change anything. Lets invent the concept of 9 dimensional magical lamps. You had no belief in this although you didnt know the concept. Same goes for babys. No belief in god can be passive if you dont know the concept. You dont have to ask the question. Thats why it is a default position. Its not an active position although it can be. Thats where materialism comes in.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 You assume atheism is somehow neutral. But atheism in itself has a definition that must be understood cognitively as a statement in the negative about belief in God. Babies are instinctual until their minds develop. Atheism and theism are cognitive choices. The only neutral position is one devoid of thought. The mere introduction of magic lamps assumes pre-defined objects and that the hearer will comprehend it upon hearing it. Positions of belief require comprehension & free will.
jdnation 3 months ago
4:41 That's one cute introvert ♥__♥
themangix357 3 months ago
Telling truth is new lie.
mtheoryrules 3 months ago
So, talking up my inane and puerile existence has become a bad thing?
:-)
jc333jc 3 months ago
Watch Obama speak when he's not reading from a teleprompter.
Muzzy337 3 months ago
If a Liar says, I'm a liar. What's that??
joecoscia 3 months ago
@joecoscia A paradox.
MrHughes89 3 months ago
@joecoscia it means he's a selectively honest manipulator
You1TubeExaminer 3 months ago
I refuse to be called a liar, I am not a liar! lol
chuchuchuchia 3 months ago
I'm on the side of trueth
LordHannigan 3 months ago
11:21- herky jerky?
nUrface777 3 months ago
Lies, damn lies, and statistics...Mark Twain
csdimitris 3 months ago
I generally depend on Logical Conclusions and Common Sense to spot Liars those are more dependable.
Kithyd 3 months ago
Holy shit, that mother who shot her kids is evil
slothman07 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector 29
@slothman07 no emotion, a true psychopath
Tolstoievsky 2 months ago
Look at Clinton's eyes. He is a left-handed person, so eyes pointing to the left indicates audio constructed information. ie he is lying
williamjpiano 3 months ago
@williamjpiano I think the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body.
LordHannigan 3 months ago
Keep looking , Henry did ok for himself :)
helimax 3 months ago
Don't trust Pamela, she's lying.
MrYorkshireFella 3 months ago 26
@MrYorkshireFella You´re lying!
XybeX 2 months ago
Seems like a fine talk to me.
mikecorbeil 3 months ago
do they have a (R) or a (D) in front of their name
glottis5 3 months ago
The funny thing is, people pointed out the flaws in Bill Clinton's denial after it was proven that he did in fact sleep with Lewinsky. What they fail to realize is that there are people, hired by the White House, to make these speeches for the President.
n0time2spare 3 months ago 2
I actually cant find any Henry Oberlander this is insane
vphghgulv 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
She strikes me as a liar. Thankfully I don't want to learn from her badly enough to pretend that I did. Another "soft" science fluff piece from TED.
momentinpassing 3 months ago
@asetentay8 It's TED. You can't joke with left-wing politicians.
JPVeigaaaa 4 months ago
Check out the hot blonde at 00:30.
JPVeigaaaa 4 months ago
I need help:
I don't know if this is the talk where she refers it. I've seen the video but I think it's not in this video. When words don't match the body language, there is a formal term for it. Does anyone know what it is? It is something like "desynchronization" but I'm not sure.
If anyone knows or listens to her saying it in the video, please inform me.
Thanks in advance.
JPVeigaaaa 4 months ago
With this information being available to anyone, we are not only creating lie-spotters (apparently everyone now is a Cal Lightman), but we are also creating better liars. For they learn to recognize their giveaways. I learned A LOT on how to lie better reading Pease, Meyer and specially Ekman.
This information should be kept among interrogators and people who do this for a living.
I think Pamela knows this and still chooses to talk about it for personal recognition. And she says nothing new.
JPVeigaaaa 4 months ago
A Bible discussion IN THIS VIDEO?
Really?
JPVeigaaaa 4 months ago
I'm a liar and this lady has a nice pair of sexy legs. :) Mhhhmmm milf. I lied.
TheJovanist 4 months ago
I'm not a liar. I just like making shit up. I'm a creative story teller.
HybridD91 4 months ago 18
This is what I do when I watch the media. I'm like he's lying, lying... oh cool... lying if we could all do this it wouldn't be pretty.
WhatEverHD 4 months ago
but it would be sooo much easier just to have a Betazoid empath...
ukenovice 4 months ago
Lying is a tool for advantage. If advantage id desired, the truth will always be stretched, moulded or blatant.
drmaddogs2u 4 months ago
Randall Flagg - Liars sit in chairs, you know. Truth tellers just sort of hunker down.
clugzo 4 months ago
i know how to spot a liar! THEY ARE NEVER STANDING
bzes10 4 months ago
Where's trollface when you need it?
FagussWebsite 4 months ago
"Duping Delight" Yeah, I don't think it takes an expert to figure out that when someone laughs they are lying.
Krahl123 4 months ago
@Krahl123 But then it all depends on how the person has asked the question in the first place. There has been a few incidences when someone has asked me a question and they appear to have looked at my face for any signs of lying, it's made feel uncomfortable and i've laughed when in fact i was telling them 100% truth.
Shocker9 4 months ago
this was interesting but she focused on verbal and behavioral cues of an individual via direct contact--but actually when you focus on the visual imagery in her slides it provides an interesting revelation about the speaker--where the slides subconsciously placed on behalf the speaker? or was it intentional?
HouseofVespucci 4 months ago
@HouseofVespucci Would you care to explain better, please? I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure.
JPVeigaaaa 4 months ago
@JPVeigaaaa it's a reference to psychology and research studies. simply, a person may reveal either an affinity or distaste towards an image or concept. with that knowledge the creator of a slide show for a presentation can mask his or her affinity or distaste for an image or concept or manipulate subject matter to encourage the viewer to believe the truth of the subject being presented. :) The video is open for your personal interpretation or insight regarding the speaker and subject.
HouseofVespucci 4 months ago
LOL fuck my ex
chrisandwhitechapel 4 months ago
The Bible. that's a mouth full right there.
InfestedChris 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector 21
@InfestedChris An atheist, that's a great example.
afar1 4 months ago
@afar1 An atheist doesn't believe in God. I believe in God, just not religion. The Bible I think is a folk tale. The 10 commandments don't make any sense... well some of them.
InfestedChris 4 months ago
@InfestedChris Clearly you've never read the Bible, nor could you. You're one of those loud-mouthed idiots that pontificate bullshit about something you clearly know nothing aboout by parroting the atheist party line.Go ahead and try me.
afar1 4 months ago
@afar1 Cry me a river you religious nut case. Seriously go grab your Jesus guitar and light some candles and shut the fuck up.
InfestedChris 4 months ago
@InfestedChris LMFAO!!! You God-Haters are hilarious! Thanks for the laugh!
afar1 4 months ago
@InfestedChris I bet you've done zero research on it and just came to that conclusion because you simply don't believe in God. But guess what, it's more accurate than your history books... ask any Historian.
ThisMemory 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
@ThisMemory Yes... ask any historian ... you know ... all those doctorate holding professors who teach from ... what was it again? the bible? OH THATS RIGHT ... history books
Th3Shadow0fDeath 4 months ago
@Th3Shadow0fDeath I don't get what you're implying... but I'm just saying the Bible is more accurate than a history book in school. And if you know anything about history you know this is true whether you believe in God or not.. So please think before you speak
ThisMemory 4 months ago
@InfestedChris how would you know? ah thats right you dont.
JordanGuitar11 3 months ago
@JordanGuitar11 Because its a fucking fairy tale.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 unless you have actually studied deeper into the existance of a god, you would not know. there is actually more truth found in the bible than any scientific descoveries made. look it up. i would really urge you to look into the big question of who created us and why we are here, a lot of people just throw it away and go with the flow, however i think a question as important as that should really be though about, not left until your death bed.
JordanGuitar11 3 months ago
@JordanGuitar11 Oh boy.... Why oh why do you believe this??!! Has the bible invented cars? Has the bible invented airplanes? Has the bible invented rocket ships? Has the bibble invented the Hubble telecope? Has the bible invented the computer? Has the bible explained quantum mechanics? Has the bible explained general theory of relativity? Has the bible discovered evolution? No and the bible have never and will never be taken serious as a source for science. You know.. faith. absence of evidence.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 im pretty sure its taken very seriously you might need to do some research. the bible didnt create that, god did though.
JordanGuitar11 3 months ago
@JordanGuitar11 Troll alert. No the bible is not taken serious by any scientist with credentials. Its a book of fairys. No healthy person would ever consider the bible as a source for evidence.
“Scientists love mysteries. They love not knowing. That's a key part of science. The excitement of the learning about the universe. And that again is so different than the sterile aspect of religion where the excitement is apparently knowing everything, all though really knowing nothing.” Lawrence Krauss
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 thats really stupid because even einstien said the probability of a god was very high. your quote is quite indirect by the way. not sure why it was used in the context that you were trying to portray.
JordanGuitar11 3 months ago
@JordanGuitar11 The point in the quote is in the 5 last words.
Einstein was neither an atheist or theist. He thought that there might be a probability that a deistic god ---->could<--- exist. Einstein also rejected that a personal god exist. So no of your arguments favor any personal god. Or a deistic god for that matter.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 Declarative hyperbolic statements that you make concerning the Bible do nothing to intelligently discredit it or Intelligent Design or Biblical Creationism. Many serious scientists throughout history and today take the Bible seriously, and must take the Christian worldview of preimmanent logic and constancy of law to conduct science in the first place. Plenty of credentialed scientists reject Darwinism and macro-evolution. Appealing to a consensus of scientists is not science.
jdnation 3 months ago
Unfortunately Lawrence Krauss and many atheists are deluded into thinking they conduct science free from their own personal biased beliefs. But they are constantly appealing to religious beliefs of materialist and naturalist philosophy. Beliefs without evidence, and a priori. Thus scientific data is constantly being interpreted and forced to fit the framework of their own worldviews. And these they declare to be 'facts' but are merely interpretations to suit their religious beliefs about origins
jdnation 3 months ago
@skotten90: I beg to differ: Sargon of Assyria is mentioned by name but once in the Bible record. (Isaiah 20:1) In the early 1800’s this Biblical reference to him was OFTEN DISCOUNTED by critics as of NO HISTORICAL VALUE. However, from 1843 onwards, archaeological excavations uncovered the ruins of his palace @ Khorsabad & the inscribed records of his royal annals. The foregoing shows that the Bible can be a source of evidence a priori of knowledge (in this instance, of archaeology), eh?
TheRonMorales 3 months ago
@skotten90 How is this an argument? Technology is invented by human beings assuming a standard of universal law and constancy exists. Theism and more accurately the Christian worldview provides a basis for these constants that atheism does not. Atheism borrows that worldview of constant law and supreme logic from Christianity but divorces it from the Lawgiver, who is God the creator. Man creates and imagines and thinks thoughts after God who endows him with intelligence and rationale.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation Atheism is not a world view. It is a lack of belief in god. Period. +90 % of scientist members of NAS, are atheists. Left over are the theists who do not incorporate their useless and unrealistic world view to their specialties(I hope not). Im sorry to destroy your warped reality but theism was invented by humans to explain unknown things. Science and technology is superior to the popular stone age myths known today(Like the bible, quran etc.)
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 Atheists do not simply not believe in God. They also believe in materialism, an assumed unprovable religious worldview that they use to try to explain the origins of life and the universe and thus try to convert people to believe in this faith. Once 99% of scientists believed in geocentrism, so appealing to a consensus of scientists is never proof of anything. Human beings are always biased in whatever they do, it is impossible to separate any worldview from daily life and action.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation You should consider looking up atheism, as i can see you have no clue what it is what so ever. Or you are just a typical blind believers who likes to shout out conspiracy theories just so atheists and scientists are on your stupidity level, so you have an excuse for believing in bullshit farytales. Be a little skeptic of what you see and hear. See this /watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=channel_video_title and /watch?v=S-BQVmvulmQ
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 Atheism is simple. Those who deny God. But atheists are also by necessity materialists. Because in the absense of God they must come up with an explanation for the existence of matter, biological life, universal order, intelligence etc. They must do so to justify their position of 'a-theism.' Otherwise to call onself an atheist is simply an empty statement. This is an obvious and self evident thing. Everybody holds a worldview which defines themselves and their actions.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation Btw, you have one last chance to improve or else you can fuck off. Atheism is like not collecting stamps. Its not a world view like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Is this to hard for your "impressive" logic to grasp?
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 Atheists who proudly proclaim their skepticism are also the most afraid to apply skepticism upon their own beliefs. Atheism is indeed a worldview. By denying God, athiests then seek to interpret the existence of life, scientific data and morality to suit their position. They VIEW the WORLD through the lens of their assumed paradigm: The claim that God does not exist, that all things exist due to purely materialist causes, and thus our lives function unrestrictingly however we like.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation You are like a robot. You cant think for your self. You hear things from your friends and familiy, and then you believe it whole heartedly. Atheists dont deny god. They just dont believe in supernatural things without evidence. Its typical skepticism which led to atheism. To believe in god is not more justified than believing in ghosts, tootfairy, santa claus, unicorns etc. And you are of course skeptical in those things right? Do so with your religion, as there is no evidence for that
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 It is not wise to jump conclusions, especially about others,. Healthy skepticism should be applied to all things, even atheism. Atheism isn't just a statement made by itself. It also claims things it cannot prove to justify its position. Such as the materialist origins of the cosmos, of matter, of life from non living chemicals, of genetic information gain in order to 'evolve' etc. Are you certain it is not you who is simply believing what you've been told to believe in? Or want to?
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation Afraid of applying skepticism for our "beliefs" ? Skepticism leads to atheism, if you are a real skeptic. Its nothing more than a lack of belief in god because there is absolutely 0 evidence for his existence. If people also are materialist then thats there situation, but it has nothing to do with atheism in generel. We dont have to explain anything. Its you who claim things to be true not us, so its up to you to prove your statement not us. Atheism is simply a default position.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 Skepticism about materialist claims, macro evolution etc. has also led others to abandon atheism. It works both ways. A lot depends on the person's state of mind and the information available to them. Atheism is not a default or neutral position. It also makes materialist claims to justify itself and convince others of its position and challenge theists. And these claims must likewise be explained & proven, otherwise in the end it is also a religious faith with man in place of God.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation What? Are really this stupid? There is tons of evidence for the origin of life and cosmos. 0 for intelligent design and 0 for god, jesus, allah and the 3000 other gods we have dismissed. But of course your god MUST be more true than the others!!! (Even though its just a myth from the stone age, but you still believe it). Everything we see on earth and in the universe has a naturel and materalistic cause.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 Then prove it. But this is impossibly scientifially because 1. The alleged events of the past happened before there was anyone to observe it, so you have no observable evidence, just imagined ideas. 2. You do not have the means to experimentally recreate the past events you imagined happened. 3. You have no hypothetical ideas to even explain the existence of matter from nothing, order from nothing, biological life from non-living material, why cognition and non-physical concepts exist
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation And btw fuck off with your stupid self proclaimed difinitions of atheism. Check dictionaries before you start. Oxford defines atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods. No more, no less. Adding more to your view and understanding is up to every individual. It has nothing to do with atheism. Every born child is an atheist. They have no belief in gods. They arent materialists or anything for that reason? Or do have a stupid comment to throw at me now?
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 I didn't define atheism differently. I said atheists ARE ALSO materialists. Just as a Christian can be a Republican; an agnostic, a Marxist. You deny God exists & you subscribe to materialist philosophy about existence & life to tell us 'why.' Otherwise your declaration of being an atheist has no intellectual support. Also your declaring new borns being atheists is unfounded. They have no cognitive ability to even consider such a question. Unless you are saying atheists do not think?
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation Lets just call it this time. You dont know what athiesm is. Have you heard of weak and strong atheism? Most atheists are weak atheists. Also called agnostic atheism. Strong atheism is not justified unless when we talk about a personal God, which of couse dont exist other than in peoples minds. Fairy tales is not evidence(Bible, Quran etc.) Weak atheism is the default position. If you answer no to "Are you an theist, and do you have a belief in god?" Then you are an weak atheist.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 I fail to see how I've been wrong. Again, whenever you make definitive statements such as "God, of course, dont exist, except in people's minds, are fairy tales" you have to explain why and provide strong evidence to the contrary. Not arbitrary statements. Both sides must. I know of categorizations in agnosticism ie 'Agnostic theists' and 'Agnostic atheists.' Both claim that knowing if God exists is unknowable, but will lean towards one side they personally consider most probable.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation The God concept was invented by humans. When there was a time when this concept did not exist, everybody was a weak atheist. Its sounds stupid yes, but the word it self should not even exist. It is just necessary in times where a god concept exist in many peoples heads. The last question in my previous post can be answered with no for every born child. They dont know and they dont believe in god. You are talking about strong atheism. I dont know if there is a deity, but i dont belive.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 Those are assumptions based on materialist beliefs about origins. According to Creationism God was the very first thing man came to know upon being created whole and entire & God revealed Himself personally to man. As we observe today, new children born into the world will not posess thought or be fully capable of comprehending the topic until they reach the age of reason thus being intellectually neutral, neither theist or atheist. But intelligence is required for meaningful debate.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation So lets start all over. The burden of proof is on you. Not me, since i make no certain claims about the origin of life, earth and cosmos. I make no hypothesis or concepts to explain the origin everything. Im skeptic and agnostic when it comes to things we dont know about yet. Though i am atheist when it comes to silly things like unicorns, sky daddys, leprechauns. But im agnostic in the pantheistic area. But it seems very unlikely for such a thing to exist. It is contradictory it self.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 The burden of proof lies on us both. Even making statements in the negative about creationism, the bible, religions etc. must be followed with arguments to justify skepticism just as one must justify their reasons for belief in God. And remember that skepticism is not an end in itself. It must go on to pursuade the skeptic to seek out the truth in a matter as best he can. Likewise, though you say you make no claims, in reality those claims are subconsciously justifying your position.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation But you should be skeptic of everything. Even science. You shoud check it out for your self. See it before you believe it. But of course you would deny anything im telling you becuase you WANT to believe in a god and you want to believe it is justified. Its called wishful thinking. Its hurt so bad that your god is on thin ice. And you want to make up for it by comming up with conspiracy theories about everybody qestioning your stupid beliefs.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 I encourage you to do likewise. One's wants and wishes will always be a part of this equation. Some desire God. Some do not. Both are biased. No one exists without it. It will affect their emotions, their approach, their honesty, and their willingness to be open-minded. The trick is in recognizing that bias & your limitations & what you do not know; subjecting oneself to honest scrutiny. In the end, death is inevitable and comes to all equally. So humble thyself while life allows.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation So if you were a skeptic you would'nt believe in fairytales. You would want to see things for your self. Educate your self and seek the truth. If we lived in a designed world and universe, and there was cold harded facts that is was designed every true skeptic would believe what the data says. Likewise what we see today. That the origin of cosmos and earth has a natural cause. But of cause you arent a true skeptic like me. You believe in things in absence of evidence.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 I don't believe in fairy tales. Just because you wish to label soemthing a fairy tale doesn't automatically make it so. You'd have to thoroughly explain why. Furthermore if you are going so far as to have someone consider your worldviews of existence, the origin of life etc. and declare it factual, then you would likewise have to prove them just as rigorously, otherwise what you have are simply stories peppered with science fiction ideas that you happen to personally believe in.
jdnation 3 months ago
@jdnation And lets make this clear. I have NEVER claimed anything factual about the origin of the universe and life. But science has very much postive evidence for this. There is no alternatives right now to explain the origin. Creationism is not a theory. There is so emperical demonstrable evidence for that. Just a bunch of claims with now hold in it.
skotten90 3 months ago
@skotten90 In denying that the bible, religion, God, etc. are wrong, untrue, or that babies are defaultly atheists because they never ponder the question etc. you have made declarative statements while trying to pursuade others that these are factual things either evidentially or in context. I would also declare the exact opposite, that science, and the fact that there is logical order in the universe, in mathematics, in thought, are proofs of a source of preeminent logic that orders it all.
jdnation 3 months ago
sounds kinda paranoid
zzzTipsterzzz 4 months ago 2
Beautiful and smart: I wanna be like her when I grow up! :)
Wheelsgr 4 months ago
Thought police fuck off
kikthatcan 4 months ago
I'm sure she understands a lot about lying but everything in this talk is very obvious and extreme. For instance the woman who killed her daughter pitted against the woman who did'nt.... Reactions manifest themeselves differently in different people.
If I killed someone and was pleading not guilty I would probably cry my eyes out in fear. Not to mention the fact that guilty people can completely convince themeselves that they are innocent.
timmy317317 4 months ago 3
@timmy317317 It's part of a larger set of tools that can be used. It is not, despite some sensationalist youtubers belief, a universal truth. Nor is she claiming as much. This is why our courts are evidence based and not based off of intuition or arbitrary measurements.
mmx25 4 months ago
@mmx25 It's titled "How to spot a liar", implicating the answer to that question is in the video. Viewers will undoubtedly use the given indicators as factual and directly put them to use in for example job interviews and the like. It's a shit talk, with shit results.
Meowbay 4 months ago
why does she talk to the ppl on her right more often than to the ppl on her left?
corrleone 4 months ago
You all are idiots for trying to show off. She clearly says, these are just red flags, alone they mean nothing, but you look for clusters of them. Which is what professional interrogators have known since the study of criminal psychology was invented.
akazombie 4 months ago 44
Comment removed
TheArchMovement 4 months ago
lol her husband is FUCKED
pyro51090 4 months ago 5
That smirk on the mother that shot the children gave me the chills. Holy sweet jesus that smirk made me look away.
BrownCookieBoy 4 months ago
Most women are not chaste or chased; they lie willingly.
JoshRom 4 months ago
@JoshRom and most men are the same way.
everyone lies.
jeaumiew 4 months ago
@jeaumiew Bah, you didn't get it did you?
JoshRom 4 months ago
I think she is just plugging her book
ClearVista 4 months ago
She says lie spotters are not people who just watch Lie To Me, but pretty much everything she talked about is demonstrated on that show. Not much more informative really.
carlandj 4 months ago
@carlandj yeah wtf this is less legit than that show wtf?
aimbotscott 4 months ago