13 internautes sur 16 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Format Kindle
I was able to read this ebook for free thanks to my Amazon Prime membership, which was great, because there's really nothing in it worth paying for.
A few days before starting 'Don't Be Decieved,' I read the much superior 'Spy the Lie.' If you are looking for a good book on detecting deceit, I highly recommend that over Mr. McClish's book.
Before I dig in too deep here, let me quickly say that Mr. McClish's book is geared towards the analysis of written statements, and in my opinion, it is of only marginal worth. It will be much less useful for those looking for interview techniques and tips on detecting verbal deception.
If my recollection is correct, Mr. McClish spent five years as Deputy US Marshal in the field, before spending the next nine years teaching interview techniques at the academy and reseaching statement analysis, then the last ten years of his government career as the head of a field office where he lectured on statement analysis, before retiring and starting his company. I respect Mr. McClish's service to this country. US Marshal's hunt fugitives, transport federal prisoners, and guard courthouses. I read he was part of a fugitive task force, but I have no way of knowing how much of Mr. McClish's first five years on the street was spent talking face to face with people who have had something to hide, and how much was spent listening to courtroom testimony or driving a transport van. I don't know how much opportunity he had during his last years as a supervisor to get out from behind a desk and interrogate suspects. In short, I question how much of his experience is real world vs. academic and he really doesn't say. Based on what I read, I seriously doubt he has spent much time talking, in person, with liars.
Mr. McClish gave multiple examples of written and verbal statements that after the fact were proven to be false, and then dissected the statements to show where the indicators of deception where. Not too complicated, really, to establish what is already known as fact. It is a bit more complex, however, to take a statement, especially a verbal one made to you during an interview, and tear it down and detect those same indicators of deception.
As I said above, Mr. McClish seems to specialize in written statement analysis. He also tends to hold to absolutes: If a person says this/that/the other, they are always lying. Mr. McClish fails to take into account, or gives scant credit to, regional speech patterns, differences in education and vocabulary, and other things that a skilled interviewer must take into account in trying to determine a person's truthfulness.
For example, Mr. McClish states that if a person attributes an action to an inanimate object, that person is probably lying: "The gun was sitting on the table," instead of, "The gun was on the table." Mr. McClish spent a large part of his career in the South, so I would expect him to know that Southerners tend to use expressions like that quite a lot in everyday conversation. So while that could indicate deception, it won't always mean a person is lying. Mr. McClish might not agree with me on that last bit...in his experience, that probably signals deception. These rules seem very arbitrary and not in keeping with what I know about how people talk.
After being contacted by Mr. McClish, I edited the above paragraph slightly, and I wish to clarify this point. In my opinion, Mr. McClish looks at indicators in terms of the absolute; that is, he views certain words, phrases, and sentence structures as *probable* indicators of deception, as opposed to *possible* indicators. In my opinion, this is a dangerous mindset for an interviewer/investigator to hold. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I believe there is an important distinction between thinking "indicator = liar" and "indicator = maybe liar."
Once again, I was glad this one didn't cost me anything but the time I spent reading it.