I very often hear the question from women: Why do men lie?
This is how the human psyche works. Lying is essentially related to the instinct of self-preservation. And in men this mechanism is often more developed than in women. If we look at statistics, we can see very interesting things, for example: more boys are born than girls, but due to the innate desire for adventure and natural restlessness, the number of boys and girls is compared to adulthood, due to the fact that some boys never reach it. survive. And those who survived know how to use this instinct very well.
Further, wouldn’t you argue that women don’t lie, but only men lie? In fact, everyone lies. If necessary or in certain conditions. For good or salvation. For the sake of self-interest or to avoid.
You may be surprised, but men are not naturally inclined to lie. For women it is more natural.
No matter how strange it may sound, but mostly men do not lie, but tell the truth. The reason is that it is difficult for men to come up with something, because the imagination of men is much poorer than that of women. It is much easier and simpler for men to tell the truth.
But for women, the psyche works differently. Due to emotionality, it is much easier for women to lie and catching a woman in a lie is not at all easy. The reason is that a woman, having created a lie, begins to believe in it, because she experiences it emotionally. And at the emotional level, for a woman, a lie turns into truth, which the woman begins to believe in.
But let's get back to the men. Sometimes a situation may arise when a man begins to tell a lie. And a situation arises when a man is afraid. If a man has some kind of fear, then the man may lie.
The roots of this mechanism lie in childhood. Having been guilty in some way in childhood, in order to avoid inevitable punishment, the future man resorts to lies and thereby, if not prevents, then at least delays the punishment.
If you think that a man is deceiving you, then before you start sorting things out with him, try to understand why he lied to you. What fear made him do this?
A simple life situation. A married man meets you and wants to hide the fact that he is married. He will do his best to hide this fact from you, hiding his wedding ring, justifying rare meetings by being too busy at work, etc. and so on. And in most cases, men succeed. But let's figure out why a man behaves this way?
To understand the reason for this behavior, answer yourself this question: Would I have gotten to know him, flirted and built a relationship if I had initially known that he was married? It seems to me that the answer is obvious.
Now let’s look at the situation that most women are so afraid of, namely the situation called “he’s cheating on me!” In this article we will not touch upon the issue of low self-esteem of a woman who has such an unjustified belief; we will consider a situation when your man actually has a relationship with another woman.
No matter how strange it may sound, if a man hides his relationship with another woman from you, then most likely his lie is caused by the fear of losing you or the fear of hurting you! I'm not telling you to be happy about this, but it can be seen as a positive sign. And instead of causing a scandal and demanding that a man fully admit his sins, isn’t it better to try to understand the reason why this happens? What is he trying to get from another woman that you couldn’t give him?
In no way do I justify the actions of men who act in this way; on the contrary, such a solution to the problem of your relationship does not lead to anything good. I want you to understand why this is happening.
And this happens most often because the man is afraid! A man is afraid that by confessing his sexual needs to you he may seem like a promiscuous type in your eyes, or he may be afraid that his sexual preferences may offend you, a man may be afraid of rejection, and who knows what else a man may be afraid of?
Therefore, using elementary logic, a man will reason as follows: “ I love and appreciate my woman, otherwise I would not live with her. Perhaps I’m not happy with everything about sex, but that’s not the most important thing; I can get sex on the side. This is much easier to do and hide from her than to start a conversation about what else I would like to try with her in bed. What if, having started this conversation, she will be offended by me, or God forbid, she will take me for a pervert? What if it’s just unpleasant for her, but she will comply with my requests and experience discomfort? What if my request is not perceived correctly and hits her self-esteem? What if, in exchange for my request, she demands this and that from me?” And so on…
It is for this reason that I do not recommend interrogating men with bias. In general, this will not bring you any benefit; on the contrary, it can destroy your relationship. It is much more effective to try to understand the reason why a man is lying to you. And the best way to understand these reasons is to have a frank, confidential conversation.
I will tell you how to structure such a conversation correctly in the next article. In the meantime, try to identify the factors that influence men's fears that cause them to lie to you, and begin to eliminate these factors. Believe me, the easiest and shortest path to a frank and trusting relationship is simply eliminating existing obstacles in misunderstanding each other’s needs.
Mikhail Petushkov
This question is often asked by teachers, psychologists, police officers, businessmen and specialists in many other professions. Such situations arise in the family. Knowing simple techniques will help you gain time when solving various life problems, and will also facilitate the process of finding out the details of the situation. Some of the most humane of them are given below.
Sudden question
The process of applying this technique can go like this. Call your interlocutor for a confidential conversation, talk to him gently and kindly, showing in every possible way that you are on his side. Suddenly you ask a question, as they say, “head-on,” that is, unexpectedly. It is advisable to increase the volume of your voice so that other participants in the conversation who are interested in a truthful answer can hear it. And then your interlocutor will not have the opportunity to avoid answering.
Blackmail
This technique is very effective when you know what your interlocutor is afraid of losing. For example, for a child it is deprivation of a computer, for a friend it is the loss of friendship, for someone who has committed a crime for the first time, a description of all the delights of prison life, etc. Please note that if you said “A”, you must also say “B”, because empty promises will not lead to a positive result. And they will lie to you next time.
I know the truth
This technique works when you are 90% sure that you know the truth, but want to hear confirmation of your suspicions from your interlocutor. For example, you can say that you heard him tell the details of the deception in a dream. This technique is good because it helps preserve friendships and family.
Non-standard question
Formulate the question in a special way. Compose it in such a way that there are several answer options.
Clarifying questions
Ask your interlocutor as much as possible about the details of the incident. For example, these could be questions “Why?”, “Why?” "What colour...?" and others. There should be no pauses between them so that it is not possible to get your bearings and come up with a new version.
Different formulations
Ask the question in different ways. A person who talks about a situation many times will still someday reveal other details that may lead you to the truth.
These techniques will help you get to the truth. Some will be helped by one of them, but others will have to work hard to get the cherished truth.
Basically, everyone wants to learn how to recognize lies. Of course, it’s very cool when we see that they are lying to us. This is a useful skill and should be developed to avoid being a sucker. But the question is: what should we do when we saw and recognized a lie by all the signs? Should we tell our liar about this!? It is unlikely that he will admit that he is lying. Therefore, we will use psychological methods that can force a person to tell the truth.
Method "Surprise"
This method, when used correctly, can force a person to tell the truth. Its essence lies in the fact that during the conversation you should suddenly interrupt and ask a question that interests you. The conversation should be structured neutrally, with as much sympathy for the interlocutor as possible in order to win him over. Thus, you force the person to relax and trust you.
Take care of counterattacks in advance, because the person will probably understand your trick and try to laugh it off or hush up the topic. Therefore, always have something ready that will prompt the person to answer the question. Or ask a question of interest in the presence of other people who, just like you, want to hear the truth.
"Blackmail" method
Blackmail is not a dirty method, so feel free to use it. With the help of blackmail, you can also force a person to tell the truth. You just need to act as follows. Feel for a person’s “sore spot” that you can grab and demand whatever your heart desires. After this, confront him with the fact that if he does not tell the truth, then an investigation will follow. If a person has not told you the truth, then be sure to put your promises into action, perhaps this will shake his self-confidence and force him to tell the truth.
The "I Know What You're Hiding" Method
This method is often used by operatives to force a person to tell the truth. During the investigation, a lot of evidence is revealed, which, if correctly compared, can paint a picture of the incident. This picture (not the whole, but only part of which you are absolutely sure of) is shown to the suspect and after that the phrase is said: “It will be better if you tell everything yourself!” After this phrase, a person has a feeling of fear that everyone really knows about his actions and he begins to tell the truth.
"Trust" method
This method is the purest and most sincere of all, which will force a person to tell the truth. Its essence is that it should be done so strongly that the person feels that he can tell you the reason why he lied. The main disadvantage of this method is that it only works among friends and loved ones. Although it’s difficult to call this a disadvantage, because it is so important for us that our loved ones trust us and tell the truth.
Method "Logical problem"
A simple and at the same time complex method to understand in order to force a person to tell the truth. To use it, you need to understand how lies work. When a person lies, he tries to present the situation so that it looks like the truth. At this moment, a logical chain of consequences is formed in his head and he is completely focused on it. At this very moment, you need to create a shocking situation for the liar, thereby breaking his logical chain. It’s very easy to come up with a situation that will shock your interlocutor. For example, when you notice that a person is lying, start singing and dancing loudly, or ask a personal question that will force the other person to switch thoughts.
WAYS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH
For thousands of years people have been forced to live next to lies and deception. And all this time they are trying to find the truth, as they say, to separate the wheat from the chaff. You can go to the truth in different ways: straight ahead and in roundabout ways, and there are no ready-made recipes for this for all occasions. For as many people and specific situations exist, there are as many ways to expose deception. All we can do is analyze typical methods for identifying the truth.
The first is probably direct impact. It can be expressed in psychological or physical effects. In the latter case, we are talking about torture as a means of finding out the truth. Often psychological and physical measures of influence are combined, sometimes pharmacological drugs are added to them, weakening the will and making a person more outspoken. This also includes various types of hypnosis and suggestion in general.
Methods for detecting deception based on physical manifestation emotional reactions, the so-called non-verbals. A classic example of this group of methods is the lie detector. But it should be noted that this group of methods allows only to expose deception, but not to find out the truth. These are precisely “determinants of lies,” but not of truth.
The third group of methods is based on logical analysis incoming information. The deductive method of the legendary Sherlock Holmes better illustrates the advantages and limitations of such analysis. In the future, a wide field of activity will open up for the use of a computer, but one important detail should be remembered: a person is full of emotions and this can make his behavior difficult to predict.
The fourth group of methods can be conditionally designated as " provocations". This includes completely different ways of influencing the human psyche, which are united by one principle: active manipulation of consciousness. In order to find out the truth, a person must be placed in special conditions. These conditions are created specifically, forcing the deceiver to reveal his cards. There is a lot here similar to a combinational style of chess play in which a piece is sacrificed in order to eventually checkmate. This includes techniques such as " lulling one's vigilance", "applying the effect of surprise", "bluff", "feigned doubt about the opponent's veracity" and other methods of revealing the truth.
Finally, the fifth group of methods reflects an individual approach to the “client” and is based on use of a person’s personal qualities, his weaknesses and character traits.
Let's start illustrating the methods with direct influence. Studying the history of legal proceedings shows us how many mistakes and misconceptions people had to endure along this path. The first methods of finding out the truth in litigation in Rus' are described in “Russian Truth” - a handwritten code of laws introduced by Yaroslav the Wise and supplemented by Vladimir Monomakh. As N.I. Kostomarov writes in his “History...”, “The evidence at the trial was the testimony of witnesses, the oath, and, finally, the test with water and iron.”
The oath was called "company". But although it was pronounced in church, in a solemn atmosphere, under the cross, it sometimes turned out to be false. The testimony of “rumor” witnesses was of great importance. If there were doubts about the truth of the testimony, the so-called “God's court” was used, which was quite cruel and did not guarantee justice. The accused was forced to pick up a hot iron, and then the nature of the burns was used to judge whether he should be acquitted or convicted. In Rus' in the old days there was a proverb: “If you don’t tell the real truth, you’ll tell the inside story.”
The original meanings of these words have been largely forgotten, and now few contemporaries can explain how the real truth differed from the ins and outs. It turns out that in medieval courts torture began with sticks ( dlinnikov). The speeches made by the tortured man under sticks - under the lengths, called authentic- it was the “real truth”. After the true truth, the tortured person was subjected to new torture, forcing him to tell the truth. the ins and outs- for this purpose, iron nails were driven under his fingernails. Torture has long been in use in Russian legal proceedings. Alexey Tolstoy, who specially studied the materials of interrogations of the 16th-18th centuries, described the methods of interrogation in Rus' in Peter’s times: “In fourteen dungeons, archers were raised on a rack, beaten with a whip, and when removed, they were dragged into the yard and held over burning straw. They were given vodka to drink so that the man came to life, and again they pulled him up with twisted arms, asking for the names of the main breeders..."
It should be noted that torture and other methods of physical coercion are effective if investigators need to break a person’s will and force him to meekly carry out the orders of his tormentors, but if we are talking about the search for truth, then in this regard physical torture does not always lead to the desired result. Here is what military counterintelligence officer O. Pinta wrote on this issue: “Corporal torture has one serious drawback. Under its influence, very often an innocent person confesses to crimes that he has never committed, and only in order to get a break. Bodily torture in the end they force any person to speak, but not necessarily the truth."
A person's persistence in hiding the truth is modified by the influence of certain chemicals. Everyone has probably heard about the so-called “truth serum” - a substance that reduces volitional control, the introduction of which into a person’s blood makes him more frank. However, many experts believe that pentazole did not live up to the expectations placed on it: firstly, people get used to it, so it may not have its effect, and, secondly, the “client” may be previously subjected to a hypnosis session, so the introduction of " truth serum" will only force him to give out another legend that was "invested" in him in advance.
But, if few of us have dealt with pentazole, then, of course, we have all encountered another drug that loosens tongues - ordinary alcohol. “What a sober man has on his mind, a drunk man has on his tongue,” says a popular proverb, and indeed, in a state of intoxication, a person becomes more frank and can blurt out his most cherished secrets.
Drunk people are known to dislike sober members of their company. Perhaps one of its reasons is that a drunk person is sometimes too frank, which can be taken advantage of by more sober drinking buddies. Historian V. Kostomarov cites an interesting episode on this topic, which concerns Count Pyotr Andrevich Tolstoy, a famous figure of the Petrine era. He was a fairly smart and cunning man. During the time of Princess Sophia and Ivan Miloslavsky, he was involved in the Streltsy rebellion and barely escaped execution, repenting in time for his sins to Peter. Subsequently, the tsar repeatedly used him for the most secret and delicate assignments - in 1717, the count deceived Tsarevich Alexei from Naples and brought him to Russia to face certain death.
Once, in order to find out the necessary information, he decided to pretend to be drunk, but was exposed by the king. Here is how the historian talks about this incident:
“Once, at a party at the shipwrights’, having had a good time and having lost their spirits, the guests began to easily tell the Tsar what lay at the bottom of each soul. Tolstoy, imperceptibly avoiding the glasses, sat down by the fireplace, dozed off, as if drunk, lowered his head and even took off his wig, Meanwhile, swaying, he listened attentively to the frank chatter of the Tsar's interlocutors. Peter, who was habitually walking back and forth around the room, noticed the trick of the cunning man and, pointing to him to those present, said:
Look, your head hangs like it might fall off your shoulders.
“Don’t be afraid, Your Majesty,” answered Tolstoy, who suddenly came to his senses. “She is still faithful to you and is firm on me.”
A! “So he was only pretending to be drunk,” Peter continued. - Bring him three glasses of good flin (warmed beer with cognac and lemon juice). So he will come level with us and will also chatter like a magpie.”
However, this method of “pumping up alcohol” on one’s opponent in order to find out the truth is not always flawless. After all, a drunken consciousness, clouded by alcohol vapors, does not distinguish reality from drunken fantasies, and therefore it is not at all easy to distinguish truth from lies in the words of a drunk person.
In N.V. Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General,” the mayor, in order to extract more from Khlestakov, gets him drunk at dinner. But he is drunk and lies like three times, which confuses the owner:
City. And I’m not glad that I got him drunk. Well, what if at least half of what he said was true? (Thinks.) How could it not be true? Having taken a walk, a person carries everything outside. What's on the heart is on the tongue. Of course, I lied a little. But without lying down, no speech is made. He plays with the ministers and goes to the palace..." The mayor did not know what kind of unrestrained braggart he was dealing with. After all, Khlestakov, having gotten drunk, himself sincerely believed in what he was talking about. And therefore, the mayor, skilled in deception, took everything at face value.
Whatever substance is used to “untie the tongue” of a person suspected of lying, it in itself does not guarantee that the truth will be revealed. "Truth serum" is useless without the use of active methods of suggestion, therefore pharmacological and psychological methods of influence are usually used in combination. However, using one hypnotic suggestion often produces good results.
The old but proven technique with two investigators - “good” and “bad” - remains effective. As O. Pinto writes in the book “Spy Hunter,” “...one of them plays the role of a rude person - he shouts, threatens and bangs his fist on the table. The other, a calm, handsome person, supposedly protects the suspect and does everything to calm him down.” his frantic colleague. The tension reaches its highest point when the "rude" one, shouting insults and the most terrible threats, is unexpectedly called somewhere. The interrogation continues to be conducted by the "nice" investigator. He calms the suspect in a friendly tone and offers him a cigarette. A sharp change in the situation usually gives good results - the suspect confesses everything."
Now let's move on to another method of revealing the truth, which is very effective in skillful hands - provocation, especially if it is used taking into account the personal characteristics of the suspect. Tradition says that the legendary King Solomon, whose deeds are described in the Bible, was a great master of identifying truth among the intricacies of lies. The third Book of Kings of the Old Testament describes the trial that the wise Solomon administered over two women who turned to him for justice. Each accused the other of stealing a baby. One of them claimed that her neighbor at night replaced her stillborn child with hers, a living one, but the second woman denied all this.
Since each of the women stubbornly defended their rights to the baby, Solomon ordered the child to be cut into two parts and given to each woman in half. One of the women agreed with this cruel sentence, saying: “Let it be so - neither for me nor for her!”, The second, after the king’s decision, refused the baby and asked to give the child to her rival - as long as he remained alive. Wise Solomon, of course, did not intend to execute an innocent child - he only wanted to find out which of the two women valued him more, and by the cold-blooded reaction of the false mother he revealed the lie.
Solomon was a born psychologist. He knew that under stress a person behaves differently than when at rest, and that is when he is prone to making mistakes. It was precisely this technique - placing a person in extreme conditions and observing his reactions - that Sherlock Holmes resorted to in order to find out where Irene Adler kept a photograph incriminating the King of Bohemia.
"Holmes rose up on the sofa and began to writhe like a man who is short of air. The maid rushed to open the window. At the same instant Holmes raised his hand; at this signal I threw a saber into the room and shouted: “Fire!” As soon as this word left my mouth my lips, as the whole crowd took it up. Ragged men and gentlemen, grooms and maids - all shouted in one voice: “Fire!” Thick clouds of smoke swirled in the room and burst through the open window. I saw people rushing about inside; a minute later Holmes' voice was heard, assuring that it was a false alarm...
“You did it cleverly, doctor,” Holmes noted. - Never better. Everything is fine.
Did you get the photo?
No, but now I know where it is hidden.
How did you find out?
She showed me herself, just as I predicted.
I do not understand anything.
“And I’m not going to make a secret of it,” he said, laughing. - Everything is very simple. You probably guessed that all these onlookers on the street are my accomplices. I hired them for the evening.
I guessed it.
I had some red paint in my hand. When the fight began, I rushed forward, fell, pressed my hand to my face and appeared in a deplorable state. Old trick.
I understood this too.
They carry me into the house. She is forced to agree - what can she do? I find myself in the living room, in the very room that I suspect. The photo is somewhere nearby, either in the living room or in the bedroom - so I decided to find out. They lay me down on the couch, I pretend I'm short of air, they have to open the window and you get to do your thing.
What did you achieve with this?
A lot. When there is a fire in the house, instinct forces a woman to save what is most dear to her. A married woman rushes to the child, an unmarried woman grabs a jewelry box. It was clear to me that for our lady there is nothing more valuable than photography. She rushes to save her. The fire was well played out. There was enough smoke and screaming to make nerves of steel tremble. She did exactly what I expected. The photograph is in a hiding place behind a sliding panel, just above the bell cord. She instantly found herself there and half pulled out the photograph - I even saw the edge. When I shouted that it was a false alarm, she put the photo back, glanced at the saber and ran out of the room. I never saw her again."
Truly, skillful provocation is a proven means of clarifying the truth. As long as a person is calm, collected and determined to keep the secret, it is difficult to achieve anything from him. But if you use skillful actions or words to disturb his mental balance, put him in a difficult position, force him to take ill-considered reciprocal actions, the necessary information will come out on its own. The unforgettable Baltasar Gracian wrote about this in his “Pocket Oracle”. The two hundred and thirteenth point of his guide to novice intriguers is called: “Skillfully contradict.”
"The best way to probe is to untangle another without getting entangled yourself. An excellent master key that releases other people's passions from imprisonment, feigned distrust is an emetic for secrets, the key to a forbidden heart. With special subtlety you make a double test of feelings and thoughts. With deliberate disdain in response to the mysterious With a word you will lure the most cherished secrets from the depths and, gently leading by the bridle, you will direct them to the tongue - and there in the nets placed by your crafty intent. With your restraint you will bring the restraint of another beyond the limits - then his desires will be revealed, although first his heart was impenetrable. Feigned doubt is the best key with the help of which curiosity will reveal everything it wants."
Another way to test a person's loyalty to you is to force him to actively act. This is how the Persian ruler Khosrow Parvez tested the loyalty of his vassals. When he saw two courtiers in his circle connected by ties of friendship and sympathy, he told one of them fictitious things about the other. In great secrecy, he said that he had decided to execute his friend on suspicion of treason. If after this the second courtier did not change his behavior in any way, then it was clear that the secret was kept. Then the courtier who was put to the test was rewarded and elevated. To close the issue of imaginary betrayal, Khosrow informed the courtier that the suspicions against his friend were not justified. If the second, a courtier falsely accused by Khosrow, sharply changed his behavior, avoided meeting with the king, behaved fearfully or anxiously, then it became clear that he knew about the king’s imaginary plans for him. In this case, the courtier who failed to pass the test was disgraced and forced to go into exile.
A. Ignatenko, from whose book “How to Live and Rule” this example is taken, writes that “to test his entourage, Khosrow used women from his own harem. They were sent to the close associate who was being tested, and if he entered into a love affair with them, despising his duties and forgetting about loyalty to the king, he was subjected to shameful punishment."
To obtain information about a person, it is possible to involve a third party - the only question is how to provoke this “third” person to report the information of interest. In the anecdote below, the “key” to revealing the truth is strong emotional arousal combined with a deliberately false accusation:
An American and a Russian are talking about married life.
When I leave, the American shares his experience, I leave the tape recorder and video camera on in the bedroom. And when I arrive, I find out if my wife cheated on me in my absence.
And when I return from a business trip, says the Russian, I just go to my neighbor and ask her: “Why are you cheating on your husband, bitch?” She responded: “Am I cheating? What then to say about your wife?” And for a long, long time he tells me who, when and how much my wife has...
Above we examined the biblical story of the judgment of Solomon. It turned out that the king of the Jews had imitators, and no less talented ones. Revealing the truth by arousing negative qualities in a person was used not without success by the old rabbi in the story of V. Veresaev, which is called “The Judgment of Solomon.” I present it in abbreviation.
In the western region, until recently, there were still patriarchal Jewish shtetls, where the rabbi was for the local population not only a mediator between people and God, but was also a judge and general adviser. In all disputes and quarrels, the pious Jew resorted to his court.
Two Jewish women who lived in the same house quarreled: they were drying clothes in the attic, one lost several pieces, she blamed her neighbor for the loss, and she began blaming her in response. Screaming, hubbub, no one could make out anything. The women went to the rabbi.
The old rabbi listened carefully to both of them and said:
Go and bring your underwear here, each of you.
The women brought it. The rabbi announced:
Let this lie with me until the morning, and in the morning come back and we’ll try to figure out what’s going on here.
In the morning the women came, and many other Jews came - everyone was interested to see how the rabbi would judge this tricky matter. The rabbi said:
Rosa Solomonovna! Rebekah Moiseevna! I know you both as respectable women and pious Jews. It is impossible that any of you would steal. But maybe one of you absent-mindedly took a couple of pieces of your neighbor’s underwear off the line. Go through your pile again, each one, here, before our eyes, and see if someone else’s underwear has accidentally gotten into it.
Rosa Solomonovna proudly and confidently began to sort through her pile. She took out the sheet and suddenly turned pale, then blushed and lowered her head low.
This.. This is not mine,” she said with shame.
That's how! Not yours? - Rebekah Moiseevna exclaimed triumphantly. “What a scandal you made, how you dishonored honest people!”
Red with excitement and shame, Rosa Solomonovna put aside the towel and men's shirt and said in a fallen voice:
It's not mine either.
Not yours too? Mr. Rabbi, you can see for yourself now.
The rabbi interrupted the second woman dispassionately:
Now go through your pile and see if you have someone else’s underwear.
If you please. But I guarantee in advance: you won’t find anyone else’s underwear with me. I’m not one of those people, I don’t need someone else’s, but it would burn my hands. And of course! Here. Nothing is foreign. All is mine.
Is everything just yours?
Only my.
The judge turned to the first woman, who was sadly awaiting her shameful condemnation, and ordered:
Go through your neighbor's pile and choose your underwear from it.
Everyone was amazed. The first woman selected several pieces from the pile and said joyfully:
This is mine. And it's mine.
Take it. This is truly yours.
The second woman screamed indignantly:
How - her?! Let me...
But the judge strictly said:
I added several pieces of my own laundry to each pile at night. Rosa Solomonovna was not even afraid of condemnation and honestly admitted that the underwear was not hers. And you, Rebekka Moiseevna - if you declared my underwear to be yours, then it means that you could even more easily claim Rosa Solomonovna’s underwear as yours.
Conclusion:
To reveal the truth, make the person worry. What he hides in a calm state he can reveal when he is in the grip of emotions. In some places, play along with him a little, in other places make him a little angry, in one place show feigned distrust, in another place pretend that you are confident in his sincerity. Adrenaline is a bad advisor to the mind...
The ability to get someone to tell you the truth is a very useful skill. This skill can help you in a variety of situations (at home and at work). It will take a little practice, patience and confidence, but it is an achievable task that will help you get the hang of things. By showing the person that you are on their side, starting a conversation with the right intonation, and knowing the signs of a lie, you increase your chances of finding out the truth.
Steps
Show that you are on his side
-
It is necessary to distinguish between suspicion and accusation based on evidence. Your approach to this situation depends on whether you rely on any evidence of the person's guilt. You will have to deal with situations based on suspicion, in which case your actions will be different than in situations with undeniable evidence.
- If you have suspicions, it is best to carefully communicate your suspicions (in a calm, non-accusatory tone) and try to understand the truth as you communicate.
- In situations where you have clear evidence, it is best to name your claims and provide the evidence you have. In this case, the person who is trying to evade responsibility does not have much choice.
-
Tell the person's side of the story. Mention facts you know, telling the story from your point of view. Your interlocutor can correct you and add to your story if some details are not true. This way you can achieve partial recognition.
Make a difference. Ask the same question, but in different ways. Remember that if a person answers your question with the same phrases, it means that he has already rehearsed his words in advance. If this person's answers contradict each other, he is most likely lying.
Choose your words very carefully. The tone in which you speak can play a big role in whether a person agrees to tell you the truth or not. An apologetic tone can cause a person to lie to you. But better words can motivate a person to tell you the truth.
Bluff if necessary. Bluffing is a dangerous but very effective tactic. Bluffing involves creating a threat. That is, you pretend that you know the truth, even if you, in fact, have no evidence, and you are not going to threaten the person. Bluffing may encourage a person to tell the truth because he or she will be afraid of the consequences.
Don't press charges. A person is unlikely to trust you if you start blaming him. Stay calm and try to act neutral. There is no need to shout, beat the table with your fists and stand with your arms crossed - it looks intimidating. A person will be much more willing to open up to you if he feels that you understand him.
Show empathy. Trust between people is built when you understand and empathize with the person. People will be more willing to tell you the truth if they know you won't judge them. Act as if you perfectly understand why this person acted the way he did.
Pretend that nothing big will happen if the person tells you the truth. People often refuse to tell the truth because they are afraid of the consequences. But if you can minimize the seriousness of the situation, most likely the person will not lie to you.
Tell the person that he is not the only one to blame. Help him feel that he is not the only one being blamed. If a person gets the impression that other people are to blame for an incident, he is more likely to tell the truth. The person is likely to withdraw into himself, knowing that he will have to deal with what happened alone.
Offer the person your protection. Tell him that you will do everything possible to help him. Reassure the person that you are on their side and that you will try to do everything in your power to protect them. A person will open up to you if he is not afraid of you.