Speech mistakes of inexperienced carders-liars

[Lord777]

Avoiding speaking in your own name.
They avoid saying "I" when describing events and giving reasons for fait accompli. This unconscious attempt to isolate oneself, remove responsibility from oneself and betrays them headlong.

Compare two phrases about the same event:
• "The phone is dead ... There was no charge ..."
• “I forgot that my phone was almost empty and when I wanted to call you, it was already disconnected”

The first phrase raises more doubts and mistrust, doesn't it?

Avoiding using the person's name to hide the real relationship.

Compare two phrases about the same thing:
• "I am not familiar with this woman ..."
• "I have never personally communicated with Anya"

Which of these two phrases sounds less specific and therefore more beneficial for the deceiver, I think everyone understood.

Phrases like "Honestly, honestly!"
An interesting fact - it would almost never occur to a sincere person to confirm his words with assurances like "Honestly!", "Honestly!", "I swear!", "I speak sincerely!" even if the interlocutor doubts his words.

Although it also happens that a person is simply used to accompany his statements with a parasite turnover "To be honest ...".

But even if he is telling the truth, such an expression is unlikely to give him credibility.

Reduction of personal responsibility by the speech turns of "only" and "only"
For example, the phrase "We are just friends with her" betrays the head of the one who hides his love relationship.

The word "simple"
"I just didn't know", "I just wanted to help you", "We'll just sit and talk" - familiar phrases?

Most often, they mean what he knew, wanted to help himself rather, was going to say or do something important for himself and, possibly, unpleasant for the interlocutor.

Or another example that accompanies tricks with signing documents: "You just need to sign here and here. It's just a formality" - it's time to read this "formal document" carefully, and maybe more than once, in case you find tricks in the wording.

Thus, “simple” is in fact not at all simple, but “for a specific purpose,” which the liar seeks to hide.

The phrase "I am afraid that ..."
Subconsciously, a person strives and wants exactly what he is afraid of.

Let's take such a phrase, for example: "I'm afraid that we will have to part" - it means essentially "I want to part with you!".

Therefore, this phrase can be interpreted from two points of view:

• The deceiver hides his desire for the event to happen and he disguises his desire with his "fear"
• The liar deceives himself, not realizing his true desires behind his fears.

The phrase "I can't ..."
If we are not talking about the physical impossibility of doing something, then the phrase “I can’t” means “I don’t want to”.

That is, the liar thus hopes to hide his unwillingness to act, disguising it as "objective reasons".

For example, "I cannot lend you money", "I cannot solve this problem", "I cannot be silent about this!" and similar statements unambiguously mean: "I do not want to borrow money (to solve the problem, to be silent)."

Phrases "I will try", "I will try"
More often than not, this expression obscures the liar's thought “I certainly want you to think that I will. But I don’t really want to, and I’ll find some kind of excuse.”

Vague, lengthy answers to the direct question "Yes or No?"
Without preparing the answer to the question in advance and trying to gain time to think it over, the inexperienced liar resorts to tricks of delaying the answer.

This can be an answer with a question to a question, and comments about the question itself, and attempts to explain something from afar before answering.

Is the use of such expressions always a clear sign of deception?
Of course not.

But the sudden increase in the number of these signs in the interlocutor's speech gives a serious reason to double-check the information received from him.

 

[Brother]

Pathological liars​

If the need to attract attention to oneself and blind other people with the brilliance of one's personality is combined, on the one hand, with an overly excitable, rich and immature fantasy, and on the other, with more sharply expressed moral defects than in hysterics , then a picture of that psychopathy arises, which Delbrück (Delbriick) called pseudologia phantastica, Dupre (Dupre) - mythomania, and whose representatives Kraepelin more roughly and more correctly designates as "liars and rogues". Most often, these are people who cannot be denied their abilities. They are quick-witted, resourceful, quickly learn everything new, have the gift of speech and know how to use for their own purposes every knowledge and every ability that they have. They may appear widely educated, even scientists, with only a superficial store of information, picked up from encyclopedic dictionaries and popular brochures. Some of them have some artistic and poetic inclinations, write poetry, draw, play music, and have a passion for theater. By making acquaintances quickly, they adapt well to people and easily gain their trust.

They know how to behave with dignity, dexterous, often graceful, take great care of their appearance and the impression they make on others: often a dandy costume is the only property of such a psychopath. The important thing is that, with not bad abilities, these people rarely show a genuine interest in anything other than their own personality, and suffer from a complete lack of diligence and endurance. They are superficial, cannot force themselves to prolonged stress, are easily distracted, scattered. Their spiritual interests are shallow, and work that requires perseverance, accuracy, and thoroughness is repulsive to them. "Their thinking," says Kraepelin, "lacks planning, order and coherence, judgments - maturity and thoroughness, and their whole perception of life - depth and seriousness." Of course, moral stability cannot be expected from them either: being frivolous people, they are incapable of deep feelings, capricious in their affections and usually do not establish strong relationships with people. The sense of duty is alien to them, and they love only themselves.

Their most fatal feature is their inability to keep their imaginations in check. With their passion for drawing, for throwing dust in their eyes, they are completely unable to resist the temptation to use for this purpose easily arising, rich in details and magnificently decorated images of fantasy. Hence their irresistible and often colossal passion for lying. They lie artistically, skillfully, being carried away by their lies and almost forgetting that it is a lie. Often they lie completely senselessly, without any reason, just to shine with something, something to amaze the interlocutor's imagination. Most often, of course, their inventions relate to their own personality: they willingly talk about their high origins, their connections in "spheres", about the significant positions that they have held and are still occupying, about their colossal wealth. With their rich imagination, it costs them nothing with the smallest details to paint the furnishings of a non-existent villa, allegedly belonging to them, even more - to go with doubters and show them to prove the truth of their words under the guise of their someone else's villa, etc. But they they do not always limit themselves to lies: only some of them lie naively and innocently, like children, spurred on by the desire to show themselves with new and new images that arise in their imagination. Most derive from their lies and tactile benefit. Such are the numerous swindlers who pretend to be significant people traveling incognito, such are the charlatans who appropriate even more - to go with doubters and show them to prove the truth of their words under the guise of their someone else's villa, etc.

the title of doctors, engineers, etc. and often manage to keep others under the hypnosis of their deceit for some time, such are the cheaters and forgers of documents, such are, finally, even many petty street crooks who lure money from gullible people with stories about the misfortune that happened to them , promises when help of acquaintances to provide some important service, etc., etc. Their self-control is often amazing: they lie so self-confidently, not embarrassed by anything, they twist so easily, even when they are pinned to the wall, that they involuntarily cause admiration.

Many do not lose heart when they are caught. Kraepelin talks about one such swindler who was in the clinic on probation and, returning at the end of the latter's term to prison, so impressed with his proud, lordly appearance the police officer sent to accompany him to accompany him, that he forced the latter to helpfully carry his things. However, in the end, they still differ in reduced resistance to the action of "blows of fate": being caught and no longer seeing any way out, they easily fall into complete despair and then completely lose their dignity.

A number of traits make psychopaths of the type described in common with a certain group of hysterics. The main difference is that their deceit overshadows all other personality traits. In addition, tantrums in their antics rarely cross the boundaries determined by the criminal law, while both forensic and prison psychiatrists often have to meet with pseudologists. A much sharper difference separates pseudologists from dreamers, with whom they have only one thing in common - the excessive excitability of the imagination: according to Kronfeld's very ingenious definition, while the dreamer deceives himself about the outside world, the pseudologist deceives others about himself.