A-Ads 2

Sunday, 12 June 2016

Extreme Shyness Can Be Overcome

That boy who never speaks in class? Chances are he has an anxiety disorder called selective mutism that demands the one thing he dreads the most: attention


Does the thought of talking in front of people make you squirm? If so, you are far from alone. Many people in the world suffer from mild to extreme shyness and are struggling to overcome it. Remember that breaking out from that shell doesn't magically happen overnight. It takes time, effort, and of course, the desire to change. You're on the right track by just being on this page -- now let's keep going.

When I was a teenager, I was afflicted with terrible shyness. Not in every context or with all people—mostly just with girls. Not unlike millions of other adolescent males, when in the presence of a girl I found attractive, I would become tongue tied, awkward, and lose all self-confidence.
As I grew older, this reaction gradually diminished, until (luckily) by the time I'd met my wife, it had largely vanished. I'd always explained this to myself as a simple function of maturation, but recently I realized that while growing older does indeed often result in increased self-confidence (we experience more, handle it, and realize we handled it), age wasn't, in fact, responsible at all.
We are, all of us, fundamentally social creatures, able to function optimally, research and experience prove, when engaged to some degree in a community. Our community may be small, but having one seems to be what matters. (All we need do is observe what happens to inmates in solitary confinement for any extended period of time to recognize just how detrimental social isolation is to human beings.)
And yet at some level, interacting with other people makes most, if not all of us uncomfortable. Even the most gregarious and self-confident people remain aware of and influenced by the opinions of others—and specifically the opinions others have about them. Even if we tell ourselves such opinions don't matter to us, if everyone in our community turned suddenly against us at once, even the most hardy of us would have a difficult time remaining unaffected.
When in the company of other people, our minds automatically construct a map of the minds that surround us. That is, we're constantly imagining and theorizing what other people are thinking—and making judgments about and having reactions to those imaginings. If we think someone in the room finds us attractive, we judge them to have good taste and feel a buzz of pleasure (or perhaps, if we suffer from low self-esteem, we judge them to have bad taste and feel an increased sense of self-disgust). If we think someone in the room finds us overdressed for the occasion, we'll feel embarrassed.
Shyness, in one sense then, represents a reluctance to engage with others for fear of being embarrassed. This explains why we can feel shy in one context and not another. In a room full of family members with whom we're intimately familiar, it's harder (though, we should note, not impossible) to feel shy, not because we know them but because they know us: they've already witnessed our typical behavior a hundred or a thousand times over, and we already know their reaction to it. So typically we're not afraid to display that behavior, to express our opinions and say the things we want to say, because the risk ofembarrassment in such company is low.
In a room full of strangers, however, no such track record exists. How, we wonder, will we be received? We don't know. How willing are we to risk embarrassment? That's what determines how shy we feel.
I'd argue the fundamental cause of shyness, therefore, rests on where we place our attention. If it's on the reactions we might produce in others and how they might therefore view us, we risk over-analyzing every thought, word, and deed and may find ourselves, as the terminally shy often do, paralyzed by a painful self-awareness. If, on the other hand, we place our attention on everyone else, willfully ignoring our concerns about how they may react to us, we might find some room to breathe as ourselves.
How, then, can we shift our focus in this way when in some cases it seems veritably padlocked to our self-image? Though not by any conscious design, I found my attention gradually being pulled away from myself and toward others as I developed not only a genuine interest in other people (the more interested in a subject we become the more our sense of self seems to vanish), but a genuine interest in their concerns. In other words, the more compassion I found myself feeling for other people, the less I become concerned about how they saw me—not because I no longer cared how they saw me, but rather because I was paying less attention to it. It's actually quite hard, I discovered, when facing even an entire room of strangers about whom you actually feel concerned or even interested, to simultaneously feel concerned about what they think about you.
Compassion, then, may represent the ultimate cure for shyness. It may seem odd to imagine upon entering a room full of strangers whom we not only don't know but have no reason to guess are even suffering, that they're in need not only of compassion in general but of ours specifically (being, as we are, a stranger to them). But to this I'd respond: who isn't struggling with something? It may not be an enormous or cataclysmic something, but everyone hides, to some degree, a secret inner life in which they struggle on a daily basis (as I wrote about in a previous post, Your Neighbor Is An Alcoholic).
But you don't need to know what everyone struggles with to come at them assuming they need your compassion. If compassion—the caring about another's happiness as if it were your own—becomes the predominant emotion you feel in approaching strangers (or, at the very least, interest in them does), I'd like to suggest shyness will become for you a thing of the past, or at least far less of a problem in the future. The trick to treating shyness, in other words, isn't in developing greater self-confidence. It's in developing a greater love for your fellow human beings.

How to Extract a Confession…Ethically

Scientists are using social psychology to enhance interrogation methods without force




Last December a Senate Intelligence Committee report revealed how two psychologists were involved in shaping the CIA's “enhanced interrogation” methods, using psychologist Martin Seligman's theory of learned helplessness to justify controversial practices such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation—something Seligman himself has repudiated.* The problem is that in addition to being morally reprehensible, interrogation methods based on force and intimidation don't work.
“Coercive, confrontational methods actually lead to the detainee shutting down,” says psychologist Christian Meissner of Iowa State University, who studies interrogation techniques. “More effective tactics rely on cooperation, which can be facilitated using principles of social influence that we know work very well.”
According to the American Psychological Association, if a psychologist meets certain conditions, chief among them “do no harm,” it is permissible for him or her to aid in interrogations. So is there an ethical way to extract a confession from someone?
To find out, in 2009 President Barack Obama convened the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), made up of cognitive and social psychologists and other experts. This winter the HIG, led by Meissner, released its findings in a special issue of Applied Cognitive Psychology. Ethical interrogations are not only possible; their effectiveness is also robustly supported by research.
At the right are some of the HIG's most interesting findings. Though developed for law enforcement, there is no reason to think these strategies will not also work on the mendacious teens, spouses and co-workers in your life if you need to get to the bottom of something.
1. Build rapport. Think of it as just “good cop.” Researchers have found that coming across as empathetic causes interrogation targets to open up more than when the interrogator is cold and accusatory. Many of the other techniques described in the journal depend on having a cooperative target, making this step all the more important. “The first thing you have to do is develop cooperation, rapport,” Meissner says. “Once you have a cooperative person, the question is, How do I get all the info from them that I can?”
2. Fill in the blank. To get that info, instead of asking direct questions, tell your target a story about what he or she did, leading the person to believe you already know what happened. As you provide the narrative, the guilty party will then supply details and corrections. This is called the Scharff technique, named for its developer, Hanns Scharff, a German interrogator during World War II. The technique was shown to elicit more information than direct questioning in a 2014 study. People interrogated using this method also tend to underestimate how much they are sharing.
3. Surprise them. People who are interrogated often know they are under suspicion, so they practice their answers ahead of time. In addition, liars are under high cognitive strain as they try to keep their story straight and at the same time act calm and collected. If you ask them something unexpected, they often stumble when put on the spot—enabling you to catch them in a lie.
4. Ask for the story backward. In contrast to what most people believe, truth tellers are more likely to add details and revise their stories over time, whereas liars tend to keep their stories the same. “Inconsistency is really just a fundamental aspect of the way memory works,” Meissner says. A technique that interrogators use to capitalize on that quirk is called reverse telling—asking people to recall events backward rather than forward in time. This strategy has a double effect: For truth tellers, it makes recall easier—in another HIG study, reverse telling produced twice as many details as did recounting chronologically. For liars, the task becomes harder when put in reverse; they become more likely to simplify the story or contradict themselves.
5. Withhold evidence until the crucial moment. In a study last March, when people were confronted with potential evidence of their wrongdoing early in the interview, they either clammed up and adopted an extremely hostile posture or immediately spilled their guts, depending on the individual. Rather than risking the former, the researchers advised truth seekers to take a middle path, alluding to evidence without making any direct accusations—at least not right away.

*Erratum (4/15/15): This sentence was edited after publication to correct Martin Seligman's name.

Ask Unexpected Questions to Catch Someone in a Lie


Whether you’re trying to finagle the truth from a teenager or you suspect a friend is fabricating a story, catching someone in a lie takes a bit of effort. Scientific American took a look at military interrogation tactics to see what works in everyday life and found asking left-field questions is a good way to trip up a liar.
When someone’s lying they usually have the story fully rehearsed and ready to go. So, to figure out if they making something up, it’s good to try and trip them up as they go. Scientific American explains:
People who are interrogated often know they are under suspicion, so they practice their answers ahead of time. In addition, liars are under high cognitive strain as they try to keep their story straight and at the same time act calm and collected. If you ask them something unexpected, they often stumble when put on the spot—enabling you to catch them in a lie.
When someone’s telling you a story you suspect is false, keep them on their toes by asking weird questions as you talk with them. Specifics are good here and the more unrelated to lie they’re telling the better. For example, if you think someone’s lying about being at a movie theater, ask them what the previews were, or if a particular B-list actor was in the movie. Head over to Scientific American for a bunch more ways to catch a liar.

How to Detect When Someone's Lying (and Get Them to Tell the Truth)

Lies are inevitable, but getting duped isn't. When you're in the presence of a liar, you can often uncover the truth by paying attention to very specific nonverbal cues. You just need to ask the right questions and observe their body language to catch them in the act.

What Nonverbal Cues Really Tell Us



You've probably heard things like "if someone smirks when they answer a question, they're lying to you." You've probably even seen shows like Lie to Me, in which characters are able to detect lies through simple body language. However, nonverbal cues are more complicated than popular culture makes them out to be.
When someone's lying, they will probably give off a few nonverbal cues that suggest something is "off," but they don't prove that someone's lying to you. Joe Navarro, former FBI agent and author of What Every BODY Is Saying, says it best (emphasis mine):
The truth is that there is not one single behavior indicative of deception. [Instead], there are behaviors that are indicative of when a person is having distress, or anxiety, or psychological discomfort.
Lying can cause this type of distress, but so could many other things. For example, Navarro interviewed one woman who showed all of the nonverbal cues one might associate with deception, but in reality she was nervous because her parking meter had run out and was merely afraid of getting a ticket. Even lie detectors are susceptible to this weakness, so you need more evidence to truly detect a lie.

Use Nonverbal Cues to Investigate Possible Lies

While nonverbal cues won't prove that someone's lying, they can direct your investigation by highlighting the important clues. Pamela Meyer, author of the book Liespotting and CEO of deception training company Calibrate, says you should start off an interview by asking your suspect easy, stress-free questions. From there, you can get a "baseline" of their body language when they aren't under any pressure. Then, when you start asking more pointed questions about the lie you're investigating, you can pick out which words make them more anxious or distressed.


Navarro gives a great example in this blog post regarding a murder. The medical examiner in this murder determined that the victim was stabbed with an ice pick—a detail not yet known to the public. The investigator used this detail to see if his suspect was as innocent as he claimed:
Rather than ask the subject questions that had previously been covered, such as if he had committed the crime or his whereabouts at the time in question, the investigator asked the following series of questions with a time delay in between: "If you had killed him would you have used a gun?," "If you had killed him would you have used a knife?," "If you had killed him would you have used an ice pick?," and "If you had killed him would you have used a machete?".
To all of these questions, the subject answered, "No," however, the nonverbal responses to each question were clearly not all the same. When the ice pick was mentioned, the subject lowered his eyelids and left them low for several seconds before rubbing them with his fingers and answering, "No." This eye-blocking behavior was enough to convince the investigator that not only did he have the right individual; he also realized the topic to pursue. In the end, after continued questioning about the ice pick, the subject began to reveal what happened the night of the murder. He was betrayed by his own eyes because of his guilty knowledge.
You can still employ this technique even without a specific detail like the ice pick. To use a simple example, say your little brother stole your prized autographed baseball. You could ask him:
  • If you had stolen it, would you have hidden it under your bed?
  • Would you have hidden it in your sock drawer?
  • Would you have hidden it in your closet?
If you get a nonverbal cue that stands out among the others—say he rubs his eyes as in the ice pick example—you have a detail you can investigate further. Again, you can't accuse him of lying right then and there (after all, he could just have been rubbing an itch), but you do have something that can further your investigation. Photo by Lynne Furrer (Shutterstock).

Get Liars to Confess When You Have Enough Evidence



So if you can't make accusations from simple nonverbal cues, how do you finally get to the truth of the matter? In the case of the missing baseball, say your little brother seemed nervous after you asked about his sock drawer. You could simply go and check his sock drawer to see if he had the baseball, giving you clear evidence that he had stolen it and was lying. Other times, Navarro notes, knowing your subject is lying is all that you need. He recalls a story of a friend who wanted to buy a building in Manhattan:
When the seller was asked general questions there were glowing responses about the building. However, when my friend asked about the "last time the duct work had been cleaned" the man ventilated his collar and coughed before he answered (pacifiers). Later he ran his hands through his hair multiple times to the question, "have there been any liens on this property?" My friend hired an investigator, not just a real estate agent, and found there were all sorts of issues with this property. His careful use of nonverbals detected issues which in the end made him wisely terminate further interest in the building. To this date, he still does not know the full truth about the building, he just knows that a lot was being concealed and the investigator confirmed there was enough there to avoid proceeding any further.
Of course, not all cases are so simple. If you really need the detailed truth, you may have to ask quite a few questions before you have enough evidence to figure it out. In other cases, if you ask the right questions, the person will realize you're onto them and confess. Whatever you do, though, Meyer says putting pressure on them isn't the answer:
First of all, don't try to be like the guy on Law and Order pummeling your subject into submission...it doesn't work. Find a relaxed, quiet, totally private place that's free of distraction, develop rapport with your subject, let them tell you their story, and then raise the cognitive load on them by asking them to tell it to you backwards. Liars often rehearse their story in chronological order, and law enforcement interrogators in particular often use the technique of asking one to tell the story in reverse order, in order to observe indicators of deceit. We rehearse our words but we rarely rehearse our gestures.
In general, a truthful person will have less of a problem telling their story backwards (though it may still be a tad difficult). Navarro agrees that pressure is a bad strategy, noting that "if you use any kind of pressure on somebody, what you're going to get is compliance. Compliance gets you a limited amount of information." Cooperation, on the other hand—building up that rapport and that trust—will have them giving you much more.
In the end, Meyer says, honesty and compassion can go a really long way:
The best way to do this is to signal through your words and actions that your world is an honest one, that you act with integrity. Also why look down your nose at someone who just committed a moral act you never would? What's the point? Try hard to be focused on facts and not on judgement of others. Often people will feel more freedom to be honest when they do not feel that their questioner is being morally dismissive or superior. As well, try to understand one's motivation for doing whatever they are lying about, and provide a no-judgements attitude when discussing what motivated them, And never ask "why did you do it?" Asking "why" directly always puts someone on the defensive. Instead suggest several different reasons one might have for committing whatever act is under discussion and let your subject choose what to share with you.
In short: The less accusatory of a tone you take, the more likely you'll get cooperation from your subject. Know what questions you need to ask, look for the right cues, and do some digging yourself. When you've uncovered enough evidence, you'll either have a strong case for the truth or they'll confess to you willingly. Photo by Richard Peterson.
This post is part of Spy Week, a series at Lifehacker where we look at ways to improvise solutions to every day problems Bond-style. Want more? Check out our spy week tag page.
Joe Navarro is a 25 year veteran of the FBI where he served on the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program. For 37 years he has been teaching and utilizing the study of nonverbal communications as well as its practical applications in everyday use and in forensic settings. Mr. Navarro brings together his academic background, scientific research, and practical experience catching spies to the art of observing and interpreting human behavior. Mr. Navarro is also the author of the international besying: 

Learn to Spot a Liar With These Verbal Signs

At times, lies seem so harmless, but they can stress us out, and even cost us money. On a more subtle level, it changes our pattern of speech, and since most of us aren’t as good at lying as we think, if you know what to look for you can probably catch a lie in the act.
The explanation for why we lie is pretty straightforward: we want to connect ourselves to who we think we should be, rather than just being the person we are, this TED-Ed video explains.
Stories based on lies, or “imagined experiences”, are different from real experiences because we have to put a bit of thought into it. As such, we’ll change the way we speak without even knowing it. Specifically, there are four notable indicators:
  1. Minimal self-references: Liars often use the third-person to distance themselves from the deceptive statements.
  2. Negative language: Liars tend to be more negative because on a subconscious level, they feel guilty about lying.
  3. Simple explanations: Liars typically recount stories or events in simple terms because it’s hard for the brain to come up with a complex lie (at least on the spot).
  4. Convoluted phrasing: Liars use longer, more convoluted sentences with irrelevant details when they could be more straight to the point.
The rest of the video spends time applying these key points to examples in our culture, examining how certain public figures change their way of speaking from one interview (presumably where they lie) to another (where they tell the truth). As we’ve written in other articles, looking for nonverbal cues is also important.