FOX's "Lie To Me"

[drlynch]

Fox Brocasting has a new show called "Liet To Me".


It says of the show, "The average person tells three lies in ten minutes of conversation. DR. CAL LIGHTMAN (Tim Roth, "The Incredible Hulk," "Reservoir Dogs") can detect the truth by analyzing a person's face, body, voice and speech. When someone shrugs his shoulder, rotates his hand or raises his lower lip, Lightman knows he's lying. By analyzing facial expressions, he can read feelings - from hidden resentment to sexual attraction to jealousy. But as Lightman well knows, his scientific ability is both a blessing and a curse in his personal life, where family and friends deceive each other as readily as criminals and strangers do. Lightman is the world's leading deception expert, a scientist who studies facial expressions and involuntary body language to discover not only if you are lying but why. "

The advisor is Dr. Paul Ekman who's career was much determined by Dr. Silvan Tomkins.

I have been attempting to start a discussion there on the shows discussion board (http://forums.fox.com/foxtvlietome).

My comments so far:


I am interested in the theory behind this show.

The show obviously promotes the science and the consultant Paul Ekman.

Ekman is the most well known scientist in the area of facial recognition and emotion.

About ten years ago I became aware of him but through his teacher who he gives ample credit for forming much of his career. That teacher was Silvan S. Tomkins.

Tomkins is seriously known among many as “The American Einstein”. This is because many see him as doing for the mind what Einstein did for the physical world.

Much of how he did this was by studying the face. He preceded Paul Ekman in this and Charles Darwin preceded both by many years by exploring emotion in man and animals and documented in a book entitled “The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals”.

Ekman focused almost entirely on the face and eschewed much of traditional psychology yet has, of course, written much on lie detection. Tomkins went on to write a complete theory of the human psychology called “Affect Theoy”

Ekman had his disagreements with Tomkins and it ended up that they came up with different but similar lists of “basic” emotions

Ekman:

Sadness

Surprise

Fear

Disgust

Contempt

Joy

* I note in the show they mention “shame” but it is not on Ekmans “primary” list as of 2003 in his book “Emotions Revealed”. He does not essentially distinguish it from “sadness”. Also the pictures they use for “shame” on the show are not what Tomkins or I would call shame.

Tomkins:

Interest

Joy

Surprise

Anger

Fear

Disgust

Distress

Dissmell

Shame


There is much to say about the differences in these lists. I hope I generate some interest and discussion.

Several things: Originally Tomkins agreed that “contempt” was primary but then broke it down into disgust and dissmell.


What do you think?

Try a search of “Affect Theory”

Silvan Tomkins

Brian Lynch MD

This is a very, very rich topic and I am very excited to see that it is being applied in any way. I would prefer to see it being applied in some “therapeutic” way but it seems that it they are trying at least.



b. lynch

=============


Hi,

Thanks for the response.

Well, what I learned form Tomkins was that the face is where it all begins. It is broadcasting who we are all the time.

Tomkins gleaned much of his thought and research from watching his new born son during his first year of life. Tomkins happened to be on sabbatical. Tomkins already had much of his theory in mind but in observing his son much congealed. He went on to do extensive anatomical and photographic analysis of the face and came up with the list I mention above.

The point is that this is a "hardwired" set of emotive responses in all of us. For a very long time and indeed still many people think we learn our emotions. Tomkins, and before that Darwin, show us that we do not learn our emotions we are born with them. Then very importantly each of us learn what those emotions mean to us.

Part of what "Lie To Me" is showing us is that our emotions are constantly being activated by the environment and "at work" BEFORE we are aware of them and that it takes a lot of work to be in control of them.

What do you think?

("Google" "Affect Theory" second and third entry.)

Brian Lynch

drbplynch at aol.com

=======================================

Dr. Ekman has his ideas and again had his disagreements with Dr. Tomkins and Dr. Nathanson. This is how science progresses, discussion. I happen to strongly agree with the later two. Dr. Ekman is getting paid by Fox to do his thing. He does his "Blog" based on his life long research and I would expect nothing other.

However, I wish to be somewhat of a foil and point out some "food for thought" for those interested.

We feel that for certain "emotion" is not the whole story. As we see the way we act is also very important. A look, a twist of the hand, a twitch, tells us something. In poker we call these "tells".

In "Affect Psychology" we call them "Scripts". But "Script" has a very ample definition. But for this short discussion I will limit it to the kind of actions we see in the program. We say that we "feel" and then we "do" and that these are very personal behaviors that we have learned form a very early age.

My main point today is that there is no IN BORN set of "tells" for lying. Basic to Ekman's research there seems to be a set of movements that are very suggestive of lying taken in context. I hope in the program they will always emphasize the complexity of this. The danger of the program is that it will inadvertently teach a bunch of people to be incompetent "lie detectors". This is by no means easy stuff.

An example.

At the end of the show or at least the Ekman's blog there is the example of Dr. L. getting beat out for a parking place. He "detects" lying by the fact the guy first shakes his head "yes" and then "no". But we know that in Bulgaria the "script" is to shake your head "no" to mean "yes" according to our custom and "yes" to mean "no". So, again, none of this is innate. It is learned and who is to say that everyone learns to lie the same way, well, we don't. Research can only be suggestive of a cultural average.

See: http://www. 
straightdope.com/columns/read/619/why-do-we-nod-our-heads-for-yes-and-shake-them-for-no

on this theme.

drlynch
======================================


It took me a while but I just found Dr. Ekman's comments on his blog for the first Episode.

see:
http://fox.com/blogs/lietome/tag/pilot/
There is a lot of good material there.

Several points:

He does clearly bring out the cultural aspects of gestures which again needs to be emphasized. That is not all people will do the same thing when lying, in all cultures. This is what I mean by "script" which I explain above.

He says: "I use the term ‘emblem’ for any gesture that has a precise meaning known to all members of a cultural group – such as the A-OK emblem in the U.S. (Watch out; emblems are specific to each culture. Someone will slug you if make the A-OK emblem in Sicily where it refers to what is considered a perverse sexual practice!)".

He, as I did, above in my first note, mentions Darwin's book on facial expressions.I did not know he had edited it.

It is too bad he has not yet given any credit to his own mentor Silvan Tomkins.

Again I strongly disagree with him. I do think the example he uses on this page for the first episode is a "shame" response and a typical one. He does say it is a shame response but he says there is no "typical" response for "shame" and does not distinguish it form "sadness". I do not think the example for the second episodes are of shame. I think they are of complex emotions.

Bottom line, I think this is very rich material but I and many others disagree with some very important aspects of it. True, we do not have the organization that Dr. Ekman does. We think that he would benefit a great deal from recognizing above all else "shame" and "interest" in his research.

[drlynch]

So I say above "Reasonable people can disagree, I hope, without the intention of humiliating or attacking which leads to a lot of other issues concerning interest and shame which I will explore later."

And so I will say a little about "Affect Psychology" in terms of some of how we see it as explaining the whole person. Again we think that it all starts with "feeling" and that the face is essential in understanding anyone's emotional life.

Where Shame and Interest become so important is as such:

We say that shame is a consequence of having our interest blocked or interrupted. I want or desire something and I am not reaching my goal. This we say is a feeling of shame. If you don't like that word start with using "hurt" or "confusion". If you don't get what you want you feel a sense of confusion or you feel hurt. At lest momentarily?

It can be a slight feeling of confusion or a gigantic on. I go to the icebox and all the ice cream is gone. Or I go to work and get fired.

Now what do we do when we feel this pain of confusion/hurt/shame?

Donald Nathanson summarized Tomkins work by saying that we really only have five actions we can do in response to such pain. We can:

Withdraw (run away)

Attack Ourselves ( blame ourselves)

Avoid ( addictions )

Attack Others ( blame others )

Or we can face the hurt/pain/shame/confusion and confront the problem and try and come up with a solution.

Now where does lying fit in?

Much lying is due to shame. It is an avoidance of shame.

Some one asked me this once:

"I have a question about lying. Why does a person have to lie and how is a lie shaming? Do shamelessness people lie pathologically? And why?"

I think pathological liars must be managing a great deal of negative affect(feeling) principally shame. What is the purpose of a lie? To avoid punishment? To seduce? The place where I have experienced this most is in the realm of money. Someone borrows money or solicits investment money. Money is to be repaid on x date and it is not. The investment money is going to come next week but it never does.

Now like many words we have always used and thought we knew what they meant Affect Psychology brings us to examine everything. I would suppose that 100 percent of people would at first blush always import to the liar a conscious willful attempt at deception. But if we look at it as a "Script"[ a "habit" or automatic response.] it becomes much less clear about what is going on. In fact it is often the case that the person would absolutely deny any intention to hurt or to deceive anyone. How can this be? It is simply that their shame and guilt is so painful that they feel they must move away form it. I move away from it by avoiding, e.g. I lie. Since my INTEREST was not in hurting you or deceiving you I am SURPRSED when you say I hurt you by lying. I am genuinely surprised, as my whole intent, my real INTEREST, was to avoid more guilt and shame and pain within myself. I do something to sooth the pain and I am so confused at that moment I am not aware or I make up any story available to deny that you where hurt or that I meant to hurt you. Of course a great many people will demonstrate shame if you call them on this activity for now, in a more quite moment, they realize what they have done. But I now also feel that we should certainly make no mistake that there are not millions of people that are so defended against shame that they are extremely dangerous. They have thousands of sophisticated scripts,habits, through which they continue to seduce others and thus avoid any need for facing their own shame.

So we call someone that can maintain this constant frenetic activity of avoiding his or her shame- shameless. When actually it is just the opposite they are "simply" avoiding massive shame.

[rene]

In my opinion, the following observation on lying by Dr. Lynch is a most important, most insightful, and most compassionate original idea:

"It is simply that their shame and guilt is so painful that they feel they must move away form it. I move away from it by avoiding, e.g. I lie. Since my INTEREST was not in hurting you or deceiving you I am SURPRSED when you say I hurt you by lying. I am genuinely surprised, as my whole intent, my real INTEREST, was to avoid more guilt and shame and pain within myself. I do something to sooth the pain and I am so confused at that moment I am not aware or I make up any story available to deny that you where hurt or that I meant to hurt you. Of course a great many people will demonstrate shame if you call them on this activity for now, in a more quite moment, they realize what they have done..."

It is an inspiring and wonderful illustration of just how much richly valuable insight can be gleaned from a very thoughtful application Affect Psychology in the hands of a naturally empathic healer and thinker. Thank you for sharing this brilliant description. Your description recognizes in a way that is exceptionally difficult to find anywhere just how painful and private this affective experience can be.

rene

[drlynch]

Rene,

Thank you for registering.

Of course thank you for your more than complimentary post.

I hope we hear more form you.

drlynch

[drlynch]

"Ok,.................................. common definition of word shame (noun, pre-12th century) :

1 a: a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety
b: the susceptibility to such emotion <have you no shame?>
2: a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute : ignominy <the shame of being arrested>
3 a: something that brings censure or reproach ; also : something to be regretted : pity <it's a shame you can't go> b: a cause of feeling shame
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shame)

drbfplynch definition of word shame : "a consequence of having our interest blocked or interrupted." (drbfplynch, Feb 7, 66.14)

"I have not gone further in defining shame as what I first want to do is see if there is interest in a conversation here and to invite people to do some reading themselves on the subject matter and the differences in the approaches." (drbfplynch, Feb 7, 66.13)

Done and done. I've looked at writings by Drs. Nathanson, Izard, Tomkins, Vaillant, Lynch, Fridlund, Russell, and Wagner to name a few. In fact, I added your webpage to my favorites list, along with the Silvan Tomkins institute and links to other experts in the field. I think Dr. Fridlund has the best counter argument to Dr. Ekman.

"I have given many readily available references, which you can go to. I have not obligated myself to give a full course on “Affect Psychology” here when I have written so much on my web site. Please go there and do some study if you want more “precise” information."
(drbfplynch, Feb 7, 66.13)

Again with the quotation marks. You know, people use those to signal to the reader that he/she ought not to ascribe the ordinary meaning of the word to its use in the specific context. It's also used to denote sarcasm. I won't post the definition of that word. You can go and look it up on the Merriam-Webster site.

"Please try and refrain form [sic] speaking for me. I would not use the word “imprecise”. “Incomplete” would be correct, of course, given what I have said." (drbfplynch, Feb 7, 66.13) (emphasis and larger font size in the original)
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message



Settfan,

.........................



Settfan: common definition of word shame (noun, pre-12th century) :
1 a: a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety
b: the susceptibility to such emotion <have you no shame?>
2: a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute : ignominy <the shame of being arrested>
3 a: something that brings censure or reproach ; also : something to be regretted : pity <it's a shame you can't go> b: a cause of feeling shame
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shame)

drbfplynch definition of word shame : "a consequence of having our interest blocked or interrupted." (drbfplynch, Feb 7, 66.14)

drlynch(feb 9th): I am not sure of the purpose of your posting the common definitions but they are helpful. I want to point out we would feel that having ones interest blocked is indeed painful. This can then lead to all kinds of cognition such as associated guilt (It was my fault it all happened). Then we see shame as a continuum on of shame-humiliation.

"I have not gone further in defining shame as what I first want to do is see if there is interest in a conversation here and to invite people to do some reading themselves on the subject matter and the differences in the approaches." (drbfplynch, Feb 7, 66.13)

Done and done. I've looked at writings by Drs. Nathanson, Izard, Tomkins, Vaillant, Lynch, Fridlund, Russell, and Wagner to name a few. In fact, I added your webpage to my favorites list, along with the Silvan Tomkins institute and links to other experts in the field. I think Dr. Fridlund has the best counter argument to Dr. Ekman.

drlynch(feb 9th): I looked at Fridlund, very briefly, (was not aware of the author) seems to follow Tomkins to refute Ekman.




=================================
Hi all,

Here is something that I think is essential. The "Ten Commandments of
Ethical Dishonesty".

So far I have appreciated the shows plots emphasizing the complex reasons people lie.
10 Commandments of Ethical Dishonesty
Dr. Susan Block’s 10 Commandments of Ethical Dishonesty*

http://drsusanblockinstitute.com/drsusanblock.html
1. Thou shalt always tell the truth--except under certain critical circumstances.

2. Thou shalt lie to save lives.

3. Thou shalt sometimes lie or withhold full disclosure of the truth to protect thyself, thy loved ones and thy country from evil, madness and mayhem.

4. Thou shalt sometimes lie to help the needy.

5. Thou shalt honor life over truth. Beware of truth-mongering zealots!

6. Thou shalt sometimes lie to inspire hope.

7. Thou shalt lie when planning a surprise party or other playful, loving endeavors.

8. Thou shalt sometimes lie out of kindness and good manners.

9. Thou shalt lie when creating fictional art, literature, tall tales, fantasies, fairy tales and fish stories.

10. Thou shalt lie as little as possible; thou shalt not lie beyond one’s needs.

drlynch




=========================================================



This weeks episode was satisfying for its emphasis on motive over lying.



We got more education on reading faces which was good but my interest was in the final scenes where Dr. Lightman ferret outs the shooter talking about how one is made to feel “like nothing”.



The camera tricks us once by showing us the man next to the shooter. This takes places at 36:37 on the web site version of the show. Here we see a good rendition of “shame” affect. Why this man is demonstrating it we do not know. It must be that Lightman is triggering a painful memory in him. Then the camera moves to the shooter and Lightman pushes him until he demonstrates anger and the characteristic face we where taught at the beginning of the show. But first there is some demonstration of shame at 36:58 then the full expression of the anger at 37:02 when he attacks. Once he is settled down and confesses there is a slight demonstration of shame again at 37:20 when he is talking about breaking the marriage vows.



Shame and humiliation is much emphasized in the body of Tomkin’s work.



If you analyze most lies, you will eventually find some remnant of shame or of an attempt to avoid shame or reaction to a sense of humiliation as its motivation. Here you see it in the shooter and with the lies about the gambling and with the brother as bodyguard. One emotional sequence that has not been made clear, I believe, is our tendency to move form shame to anger. In fact many believe that most of our anger rests in shame and if we would pay attention to our shame there would be a lot less anger in the world.


"Googel" "Affect Theory" second entry

or Brian Lynch M.D.

[cholak]

Health News
Boozing Blunts Ability to Read Faces
8/13/2009Print E-mail THURSDAY, Aug. 13 (HealthDay News) -- Heavy drinking can affect the ability to recognize other people's facial emotions, a new study has found.

Researchers used functional MRI to monitor brain activity in 15 abstinent long-term alcoholics while they looked at images of faces with positive or negative emotional expressions. The brain scans revealed decreased activation in the amygdala and hippocampus, regions of the brain used for processing facial emotions.

The inability to judge emotional expressions "can result in miscommunication during emotionally charged situations and lead to unnecessary conflicts and difficulties in interpersonal relationships. The resulting negative repercussions can, in turn, contribute to increased drinking," study author Ksenija Marinkovic, an assistant professor in residence in the radiology department at the University of California, San Diego, said in a news release from Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, which is publishing the findings online and in its November print issue.

The study also found that the brains of the alcoholics recruited the prefrontal cortex while processing facial emotions, perhaps compensating for the reduced activation of the amygdala and hippocampus.

Previous studies found that reduced amygdala activity occurs in psychopaths and in people with a family history of alcoholism.

"Amygdala hypoactivity may underlie emotional dysfunction in chronic alcoholics ... and be part of a wide array of behavioral problems, including disinhibition and disregard for social norms," Marinkovic said.

"Viewed in their totality, these results show that not all facial expressions are necessarily perceived the same by everyone, and that alcoholics may be at a special disadvantage in detecting emotion-filled facial expression, which we all naturally use to convey information, such as warnings, love, anger and defense, among others, and assume that the intended message is accurately perceived," Edith V. Sullivan, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, said in a news release.

"Whether the differences between controls and alcoholics in brain activation existed before the onset of alcoholism, or are the result of neural circuitry changes or differences in blood perfusion caused by chronic alcohol consumption, intoxication or withdrawal, remain as questions to be answered," Sullivan said.