Science Weekly

Traitor or faithful: how to spot a liar

32 snips
Oct 14, 2025
Timothy Luke, a senior lecturer in applied psychology at the University of Gothenburg, dives into the intricacies of deception and lie detection. He reveals that common myths, like sweating and nervous ticks, lack scientific backing. Timothy discusses the average person's struggle with detecting lies and critiques the reliability of polygraphs. He also shares insights on how vague statements may indicate deceit and suggests evidence gathering as a trustworthy method for spotting liars. His practical advice? Approach judgments cautiously and focus on collecting clear evidence.
Ask episode
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
INSIGHT

Human Lie Detection Is Practically Chance

  • People are only about 54% accurate at detecting lies, barely above chance.
  • Small individual differences exist but they rarely improve practical accuracy.
INSIGHT

Eye Contact Is Not A Reliable Cue

  • Avoid assuming lack of eye contact signals deception; science finds no link.
  • Gaze aversion often reflects stereotype and projection of guilt, not truth.
INSIGHT

Polygraphs Measure Arousal, Not Lies

  • Physiological measures like heart rate and skin conductance track arousal, not lying.
  • Polygraphs conflate stress and cognitive effort, making them unreliable for deception.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
Get the app