Hi Persuader,
Under the heading of ‘human nature’ comes lying. Humans lie. Period. Big lies, small lies, lies to spare feelings, lies to spare trouble.
Part of deconstructing human nature so that we can slip into the skin of our prospects and clients is understanding this plain and simple fact of life and detecting when it’s happening to us.
Learning to detect the truth is an enjoyable pursuit that can open doors where they were previously closed. Unfortunately, you may regret that the door has been opened.
This is why I’m going to reveal to you in this article one of the reasons why I will not allow prosecuting attorneys or police officers or detectives or law enforcement of any kind into my trainings.
On one hand, knowing that a person is telling you the truth could be very reassuring. On the other, it’s scary to know exactly how much lying goes on.
This was once the province of police detectives and murder mysteries. The information, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, can help choose the more honorable person to hire, detect trouble in the family early on, sort out an office dispute or give you a leg up if you find yourself in the wrong end of an interview.
Expert interrogators use these types of tactics to determine whether a suspect is telling the truth or not. You can see examples of it on television all the time—Law & Order, NYPD Blue—and in literature from Sherlock Holmes to John Grisham.
A highly trained person with these skills is a formidable opponent even if they do not have persuasion abilities. And what I can tell you right now is the following:
You’re about to learn one of the reasons why I will not allow prosecuting attorneys or police officers or detectives or law enforcement of any kind into my trainings.
Because this is such powerful information and can really be used to manipulate if put in the wrong hands, I’m only able to give a glimpse into these skills in this article and will only go into this in more depth in my seminars and on Elite Coaching Club calls.
Here’s an exercise that can be used to ascertain whether a person is lying…
Step one: Sit across from a partner to practice.
Step two: Ask him/her three questions that you know will be “yes” answers. Then ask three questions that you know will be “no” answers. Observe their behavior.
Step three: Then ask questions you don’t know the answer to. Instruct your partner not to tell you the answers.
Since they will not reply, you’ll need to read their nonverbal responses. Once you’ve done a few and noted what you think their answers will be, ask them to confirm or deny them.
To take this a step further, have your partner answer you verbally and you can use their nonverbal responses to determine whether they’re telling the truth or not. Step four: Switch roles after and have them try this with you.
How could this be used with clients and prospects? How about the old line, ‘I can’t afford it right now.’ Is it true? False?
How could the knowledge that they absolutely can afford it help you to push past the resistance and make the sale, despite their feeble objection?
Until Next Time,
Kenrick E. Cleveland
Hi Persuader,
In the movie The Usual Suspects there’s a scene where a detective is interrogating an alleged criminal.
The detective says, “The first thing I learned on the job, know what it was? How to spot a murderer. Let’s say you arrest three guys for the same killing. Put them all in jail overnight. The next morning, whoever is sleeping is your man. If you’re guilty, you know you’re caught, you get some rest – let your guard down, you follow?”
This struck a chord in me about a current event. In the news (you could have hardly avoided it) is the strange story of Senator Larry Craig.
In case you’ve been out of the country (or in case you don’t live the the U.S.), the Republican Senator from Idaho was arrested on June 11th at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer. The officer was investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom.
On August 8th, he pled guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed, with one year probation.
Craig’s spokesman said it was a “misunderstanding”.
And yet, he pled guilty.
Craig later said, “I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expiditiously.”
Here’s where the incongruity comes in:
1. An innocent man doesn’t plead guilty. An innocent man puts up a huge fight, doesn’t get any sleep, rages about his innocence. (This is not to say that guilty people don’t also use this same tactic.)
2. He didn’t call an attorney. This is always the first thing one does – whether guilty or innocent – when dealing with law enforcement. What’s the “quickest and most expeditious” way to handle a legal matter? Get some representation. Attorneys are like dentists… we don’t really want to deal with them until we REALLY need them, but still… this is a “really need them” situation.
3. By saying, “I have never been gay – nor have I ever been gay,” he believes that it is possible to be gay, say six months ago, then become ungay, say last week. This points towards a “waffling” and cover up.
And last, but perhaps the most incongruous action of all:
4. He didn’t go home and tell his wife about the incident. If something as outrageous as this happened to any one of us and had absolutely no basis in truth, wouldn’t we all go home to our spouses (or families or friends) and say, “You’re not going to believe what happened to me today. It’s the most absurd thing…”
Senator Craig has come up with a scapegoat in the form of “the media”.
He claims that he pled guilty because he had been troubled by the investigations into his alleged homosexuality by the Idaho Statesman and claims that he has “been relentlessly and viciously harassed”.
The media is easily vilified and a safe scapegoat, but here with his “history” it doesn’t ring true.
As persuaders, how, in either situation – whether the allegations are absolutely false or absolutely true – could we frame the story if we were in his shoes?
Did his incongruity give him away?
And what can he do to unframe himself?
Until Next Time,
Kenrick E. Cleveland
When you join the maxpersuasion Community, you don't just get access to the webs best community and discussion about persuasion, but you'll also receive FREE Webinars, a FREE 28 Page Criteria Report, FREE Persuasion Training and Discounts on MaxPersuasion Products
