What are the best ways to discover lies?

There are far better ways than just body language and eye movements to find out who is lying or lying.

Thomas Ormermard's security team faces a task that may seem impossible to detect. The team was asked to interview passengers at European airports about their travel history and plans. For this purpose, Ormirod has planted several people arriving at the security checkpoint with false biographies and a fake travel plan, which his team must discover.

Only one out of 1,000 interviewees fooled the team's security personnel. The identification of the scammers seemed like someone looking for a needle in a haystack.

So what did they do? One option is to focus on body language or eye movement, right? But this idea would look bad. Studies have shown that attempts, even by trained police officers, to identify the liar of body language and facial expressions were not successful and that few successes happened by accident no more and no less.

One study said that 50 out of every 20,000 people were able to correctly identify the liar by more than 80 percent, but most people only guessed
The team tried to apply something different and was able to identify imaginary travelers in most cases. The secret was to get rid of many of the known means of deceit and start again by applying new and direct means.

Over the past few years, research on phishing has suffered disappointing results. But the latest research focused on reading the liar's intentions through body language, facial expressions and cheeks, or through tense laughter or exaggerated eyes.
Use open questions: this would force the liar to elaborate on the speech until he himself committed the error himself.

Use the element of surprise: investigators should ask unexpected questions that make the liar confuse, or ask him to retrieve past events, methods that make it difficult for the liar to maintain his honesty.

Pay attention to the minute details: If a traveler says that he is studying at Oxford University, ask him to tell you by getting to the university. If you find a contradiction, it is best not to rush the victim to tell the existence of contradiction, and let him feel confident that you believe what he says, and do not correct or correct, which will push him to continue lying.

Note the change in confidence: The victim may prolong his conversation when he feels that he is the one who is conducting the conversation, but his sense of comfort fades when his control of the conversation management begins to diminish.

The goal is to engage with the person in an informal conversation rather than as an intensive investigation. Under this simple pressure, the victim himself will sign the contradiction in his novel, or become a conspirator and a conspirator in his responses.