Former FBI Agent Breaks Down Interrogation Techniques | WIRED
Summary
TLDRالملف النصي يتضمن محادثة مع جو نفاررو، مخبر سابق في المكتب الفدرالي للتحقيقات، يتحدث عن الحيل الجسدية وكيفية كشف التزوير. يوضح نفاررو أن هناك أشخاص يتصرفون بشكل مزعج للعقل بسبب الضغوط النفسية، لكن هذا لا يعني بالضرورة التزوير. ينصح بالإستراحة وال提问 بسلاسة لضمان تذكرة أفضل من الشخص الbeing questioned. يشدد على أن التكنولوجيا غير موجودة لتحديد التزوير من الإشارات الجسدية، ويشدد على خطورة الضغط النفسي والتأثير على الذاكرة.
Takeaways
- 🚪坐姿的重要性:在FBI面试中,让被访者坐在门边可以增加心理舒适度。
- 🕵️♂️非言语沟通专家:Joe Navarro强调,没有单一的行为可以确定欺骗行为。
- 🙅♂️皮诺曹效应的误区:触摸鼻子、喉咙或耳朵并不表示欺骗。
- 😓不适和痛苦的迹象:在寻找欺骗的迹象时,应该寻找不适和痛苦的指标。
- 🚫压力的负面影响:创造心理压力可能会损害记忆力,不利于获取信息。
- 👥个人空间的尊重:在面试中保持适当的距离,避免侵犯个人空间,以减少紧张感。
- 👁️🗨️眼神接触的适度:减少眼神接触可以帮助被访者放松。
- 🌀深呼吸的模仿:通过深呼吸来引导被访者放松。
- 🗣️简单问题的提问:通过提问简单问题来引导被访者,有助于他们回忆和放松。
- 🚫压力下的虚假认罪:在压力下,有些人可能会承认他们没有犯下的罪行。
- 🤔认知负荷:当被问及细节时,说谎者可能会表现出认知负荷,难以回答。
- 📚身体语言的误解:许多关于身体语言的普遍信念实际上并没有科学依据。
Q & A
ما هي الطريقة المثلى لجعل الأشخاص يشعرون بالراحة خلال المقابلات؟
-ال-agent Joe Navarro ينصح بوضع الأشخاص بالقرب من الباب لزيادة الراحة النفسية، وعدم وضعهم في أطراف الغرفة.
لماذا يعتقد Joe Navarro أن السلوكيات غير اللفظية ليست مؤشرات دالة للكذب؟
-يشدد Joe Navarro على أنه لا توجد علاقة مباشرة بين السلوكيات الجسدية مثل لمس الأنف أو الحلق أو لمس الأذنين وبين الكذب، ويعتبر هذا الاعتقاد 'منطقي البانوكيو'.
ما هي القصة التي ذكرها Joe Navarro في كتابه 'What Every Body is Saying'؟
-القصة تتحدث عن امرأة تم دعوتها إلى مكتب الFBI لأسباب تفتيش، حيث بدأت تظهر تصرفات تدل على القلق ولم تكن قد بدأت المناقشة حول القضية.
لماذا كانت السيدة التي ذكرت Joe Navarro تشعر بالقلق؟
-كانت السيدة تقلق من أن تحصل على مخالفة لعدم وجود عملات كافية لملء مدى ال计价器.
كيف ينصح Joe Navarro بإجراء المقابلات؟
-ينصح Joe Navarro بإجراء المقابلات بطريقة تجعل الشخص يشعر بالهدوء، مثل التحدث بصوت منخفض وبطيء، وعدم الاقتراب كثيرًا من الشخص المقابل، وتقليل النظرة المباشرة.
لماذا ينصح Joe Navarro بوضع الأشخاص بالقرب من الباب؟
-يعتقد Joe Navarro أن وجود الأشخاص بالقرب من الباب يزيد من الراحة النفسية، مما يساعد على تخفيف الضغط النفسي.
ماذا ينصح Joe Navarro بفعله قبل البدء في ال讯问؟
-ينصح Joe Navarro بالبدء بالأسئلة البسيطة مثل 'حدثني بأسمك' للسماح للشخص بالإشارة إلى الذكريات الإيجابية، مما يساهم في الراحة النفسية.
لماذا يرى Joe Navarro أن الضغط النفسي يمكن أن يؤثر على الذاكرة؟
-يعتقد Joe Navarro أن الضغط النفسي قد يؤثر على الذاكرة، حيث أن القلق قد يؤدي إلى نسيان الأشياء البسيطة مثل مكان المفاتيح.
ما هي النتيجة المحتملة لإنشاء ضغط نفسي خلال المقابلات؟
-يذكر Joe Navarro أن إنشاء ضغط نفسي قد يؤدي إلى تأخير الشخص في العودة إلى الوضع الطبيعي، مما قد يؤدي إلى تعطيل المقابلة.
كيف يمكن للشخص أن يحمي نفسه من التزوير؟
-ينصح Joe Navarro بالتركيز على ما يقال وتقديم الأدلة، وطرح الأسئلة بطريقة تتطلب الإجابة البسيطة، مما قد يسبب تعب عقلي إذا كان القصة مزورة.
لماذا يعتبر Joe Navarro أن الاعتقاد بالإشارة الجسدية للكذب هو خاطئ؟
-يشدد Joe Navarro على أنه لا توجد علم تأييد لهذه الاعتقادات، وأن السلوكيات الجسدية قد تشير إلى القلق فقط، وليس للكذب.
Outlines
🕵️♂️ 高级访谈技巧与欺骗行为的识别
Joe Navarro,一位前FBI间谍捕手和非语言沟通专家,分享了他在25年职业生涯中的经验。他强调,没有单一的行为可以确定一个人是否在撒谎。他解释说,人们在紧张时可能会触摸鼻子、喉咙或耳朵,但这并不意味着他们在欺骗。Navarro讲述了一个故事,一名女子在FBI办公室表现出紧张行为,但这些行为只是因为她担心停车计时器时间到了,而不是因为她涉及犯罪。他指出,即使是诚实或不诚实的人,都可能表现出心理上的不适,但这并不一定意味着他们在撒谎。Navarro还分享了一些使受访者放松的技巧,比如让他们坐在门边、保持一定的距离、减少眼神接触,并进行呼吸练习,以帮助他们放松并提高记忆力。
🚫 避免创造心理压力
Navarro不推荐在访谈中创造心理压力,因为这会使受访者需要半小时到一小时的时间才能恢复正常。他通过自己的经验说明,增加压力并没有帮助,反而可能导致访谈偏离正轨。他回忆了一次在乔治亚州一个木材场的装载码头上进行的长达三个多小时的站立访谈,由于压力过大,他不得不结束访谈,而事实证明被访谈者并没有犯下间谍罪。Navarro还批评了过去几十年中警察学院和FBI教授的一些关于欺骗行为的错误观念,比如触摸鼻子、咳嗽或向上看等行为。他提到了261起DNA平反案例,这些被错误定罪的人中没有一个警察或检察官能够检测到真相,但他们却声称能够检测欺骗。他还指出,这些案例中有25%的人愿意承认犯罪以结束访谈过程,这是一个令人震惊的数字。
🗣️ 非语言沟通在侦讯中的应用
Navarro讨论了非语言沟通在侦讯中的应用,他讲述了一个案例,其中一名名叫Ricky的嫌疑人因为知道受害者是被冰锥刺死的而被怀疑。通过一系列问题,Navarro观察到Ricky在听到'冰锥'这个词时的非语言反应,从而揭示了他的罪行。他强调,虽然非语言沟通在法庭上不被接受,但它们可以帮助侦讯者了解只有嫌疑人才知道的信息。Navarro还讨论了人们为了社交生存而说谎的情况,以及如何通过提出简单问题来检测谎言。他警告说,关于身体语言的许多神话是不准确的,并且基于非语言沟通来判断某人是否在说谎可能会导致严重的法律后果。他强调,我们只能观察到心理上的不适行为,而不能确定它们是否表明欺骗。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡FBI
💡nonverbal communications
💡deception
💡psychological comfort
💡indicators of discomfort and distress
💡Pinocchio effect
💡cathartic exhales
💡stress
💡DNA exonerations
💡cognitive load
💡body language myths
Highlights
ال-agent الفيدرالي يتأكد من أن الشخص يجلس بالقرب من الباب لزيادة الراحة النفسية.
لا يوجد تأثير "بينوكيو" في الكشف عن الخيانة، والاعتقاد بأن الشخص يفعل ذلك عندما يلمس أنفه أو يفرك حنجرته أو يلمس أذنه هو بالشذوذ.
ال-agent يبحث عن مؤشرات للعدم الراحة والanguish، وليس للخيانة لأن لا يوجد سلوك واحد يشير إلى الخيانة.
ال-agent يستخدم قصة امرأة كانت متورطة في تحقيق لتوضيح كيف يمكن أن تكون السلوكيات الجسدية مؤشرات للقلق بدلاً من الخيانة.
ال-agent يشدد على أنه لا يمكن أن يشير السلوكيات الجسدية بشكل دقيق إلى الخيانة، وأنه يجب التحقق من السبب وراء هذه السلوكيات.
ال-agent يستخدم الصوت البطيء والانخفاض لجعل الشخص يشعر بالهدوء وتحسين الذاكرة.
ال-agent يفضل وضع الشخص بالقرب من الباب وعدم الاقتراب منه لتجنب القلق.
ال-agent يتجنب إجراء اتصال眼部接触过多 لجعل الشخص يشعر بالهدوء.
ال-agent يستخدم التنفس الناشف كطريقة لمساعدة الشخص في الهدوء الذهني.
ال-agent يبدأ بالأسئلة البسيطة لجعل الشخص يشعر بالراحة النفسية.
ال-agent ينصح ضد إنشاء ضغط نفسي للشخص لأن ذلك يؤثر على الذاكرة ويأخذ وقتًا طويلاً للعودة إلى التوازن.
ال-agent يذكر مواجهة مع شخص يشتبه في ال間諜 وكيف لم يساعد الضغط النفسي في التحقيق.
ال-agent يوضح أن السلوكيات الجسدية ليست مؤشرات قوية للخيانة وأنه يجب التحقق من القصة وتقديم الأدلة.
ال-agent يتحدث عن الأخطاء التقليدية في تحليل الجسدية وتأثيرها على الأحكام القضائية.
ال-agent يشير إلى أن 25% من الأشخاص كانوا محكومين على الموت ووافقوا على الاعتراف بالجريمة للتوقف عن التحقيق.
ال-agent يشدد على أن الجسدية ليست دالة للكشف عن الخيانة وأنه يجب التحقق من القصة وتقديم الأدلة.
ال-agent يذكر قصة ال间諜 الذي أُخدع به لسنوات بسبب قدرته على القول في القصص.
ال-agent ينصح بالسؤال وتحقق القصة للكشف عن الخيانة بدلاً من الاعتماد على الجسدية.
ال-agent يتحدث عن الخيانة كأداة للبقاء الاجتماعي وكيف أن معظمنا ي说谎 ما بين 3 إلى 5 مرات في الساعة.
ال-agent يشدد على أن الجسدية ليست دالة للكشف عن الخيانة ويجب التحقق من القصة وتقديم الأدلة.
Transcripts
- So as an FBI agent, one of the things
that I would do to make people comfortable
was I always made sure that they would sit next to the door.
On television you always see the suspect
sitting in the corner of the room.
That is third grade interviewing.
Graduate level interviewing is you sit them near the door.
Why?
There's greater psychological comfort there.
[dynamic music]
My name's Joe Navarro.
And for 25 years I was a spy catcher with the FBI.
And I am a nonverbal communications expert.
So here's the truth about detecting deception
or detecting if somebody's lying.
There is no Pinocchio effect.
It is sheer nonsense to assume that if
somebody touches their nose, clears their throat,
or touches their ear, that they're being deceptive.
And I think this is the first time
I'm revealing this on video.
What we look for are indicators of discomfort and distress.
We're not looking for deception
because there is no single behavior indicative of deception.
[keyboard tapping]
One of my favorite stories that's in my book,
"What Every Body is Saying", is of a woman
that was invited to the FBI office
because she was part of an investigation.
And during the first 20 minutes or so that
we in the FBI use to calm the person down
this individual, instead of calming down,
became even more stressed.
And we hadn't even talked about the case.
She was biting her lip,
she was touching her suprasternal notch,
she was clutching at her neck jewelry.
A couple of times there she was wringing her hands.
And finally I said to her, madam,
you look like you need to get something off your chest.
And she said, thank you, Mr. Navarro.
Because when I parked downstairs I only had
two tokens for the meter and the meter's about to run out.
So here were all these behaviors
that maybe 30 years ago people would of looked at
and said, oh, this is indicative of deception.
I mean, she's touched her nose, she's bit her lip.
No, she was worried about getting a ticket
because she didn't have enough coins
when she parked downstairs.
And as it turns out somebody had stolen her ID,
she had nothing to do with a crime.
Whether we're dealing with the honest or the dishonest
we may see behaviors that are
indicative of psychological discomfort.
The only thing that we can do is try to determine
why we are seeing those behaviors,
but not assume that they're indicative of deception,
because the science just is not there.
One of the things that I would do
to make people comfortable was to say,
look, I'm an FBI agent.
We're conducting an investigation.
And obviously you're here for a reason.
My tone was always to go lower and slower
to make sure that at a subconscious level
they began to relax.
What we want is someone who is calmer
so that we have better recall.
Remember, when we create stress
we're affecting their memory.
And this is why when we have stress
we can't remember where the keys are.
So we want the person to calm down.
So we put them near the door,
and we don't sit too close to them,
because when we violate space it makes people nervous.
So we back away from them,
probably somewhere between four and five feet away,
which is really unusual because on television
we're used to seeing people very up close.
And then rather than make a lot of eye contact,
which is very intimidating,
what I would do is make less eye contact
so that they would begin to relax.
And then I would do cathartic exhales.
So I would look at my notes
and do something like this.
[Joe exhaling]
At a subconscious level the person listening to me
will actually mirror that
because humans gravitate towards homeostasis.
Then I'd begin with very simple things.
I would say, tell me about your name.
It gives them an opportunity to say, well,
my father, his grandmother was named this way.
And now the person is relating subconsciously
to these positive things that occurred in their life.
And they're bringing it forward,
which also contributes to psychological comfort.
So are there times when we need to
create psychological pressure?
That is a profound question.
I don't recommend it.
Because once you create psychological pressure,
we know that it takes anywhere from
a half hour to an hour to return that person
back to normal or homeostasis.
After doing 13,000 interviews I can tell you,
I have never seen where escalating a situation
has benefited anyone.
What it has done is it has derailed me
as an interviewer to the point where,
I remember there was an espionage interview I was doing
on someone that was accused of espionage,
and it was a bizarre interview.
It was done standing up over three and a half hours
on the loading dock of a lumber yard in Georgia.
And myself and the suspect were going back and forth.
And I was just getting more and more frustrated.
And the man was sticking to the same story.
And I was beginning to lose my patience.
I had to end the interview
because at that point I wasn't thinking clearly.
And as it turns out,
this individual did not commit espionage.
His repetition of the same story
was consistent with what really happened.
He didn't do it.
And so this was one of those mid-career type situations
where it validated that thinking once again,
that raising your voice,
creating stress is not beneficial at all.
- What do you know about those stolen jewels?
- Jewels?
- When I came into law enforcement in 1975
I was going through the Utah Police Academy.
And they were teaching back then
that if somebody touched their nose,
touched their mouth, or coughed, they were lying.
This is sheer and absolute nonsense.
And they were teaching this for decades.
And even when I entered the FBI in 1979
there were still misconceptions about,
well if somebody asks for a drink of water,
or if they look up and to the left
and then they look to the right,
that they're creating or inventing an answer and so forth.
And the fact of the matter is that is all garbage.
There were any number of things that we were falsely told
that were indicative of deception.
From facial touching, to sniffing,
rubbing the insides of our mouths
with our tongue and so forth.
Here's the downside to all of this.
I looked at the 261 DNA exonerations
that took place over the last few decades.
And this was the initial review
of these individuals who had been convicted
and were sentenced to be executed.
And DNA later proved that
they had nothing to do with the crime.
And here's what's sad.
In every single case, not one, not one police officer,
not one prosecutor could detect the truth.
But they all claimed to be able to detect deception.
The other thing we found that was interesting
from those 261 DNA exonerations,
fully 25% was willing to admit to a crime
just to stop the interview process.
That means that those interviews,
where there was a lot of psychological pressure applied,
where it took place over hours and hours and hours,
where there was a lot of threatening demeanor
that eventually the people were willing to say,
you know what?
Just to, you know, I'm gonna admit it,
even though it's gonna cost me my life.
25%, that's frightening.
So every time I hear somebody out there says,
oh I can tell that they're lying
from their their body language,
I just say that's absolute rubbish.
There is no science to support it.
- All right, Ralph.
You want it the hard way I can fix that too.
You've got 20 years staring you right in the face.
- What do you want me to say, that I did it?
- We're always dealing with the human brain,
whether we're dating,
whether we're dealing with family members,
or even in a forensic interview.
You know, I tell the story
of this individual in Yuma, Arizona,
who immediately came under suspicion.
There was a body found
and the person had been stabbed with an ice pick.
Now the only person that knew this
was myself and the suspect.
We found out that the victim had been
in an argument with this individual named Ricky.
So, I go and meet with Ricky.
And Ricky said, I had nothing to do with it.
And I said, well, that's fine.
I said, well, Ricky,
you tell me you didn't kill this gentleman.
But if you had, would you have used a machete?
And he said, no.
I said, okay, would you have used a gun?
No.
How about an ax?
No.
And I said, Ricky, would you have used an ice pick?
And when I used the word ice pick, which obviously
somebody with guilty knowledge would respond to,
his eyelids came down and he tucked his chin in.
Blocking behavior, protective behavior.
So I just looked at him and I said, Ricky, come on.
You were seen having an argument with him and now he's dead.
And eventually he confessed.
Keep in mind that nonverbal communications per se
are not admissible in court.
I mean, I could say that the person looked distraught.
And defense counsel might ask,
well how would you know that?
How long have you known the person?
What does distraught look like?
And I could say, well, I, he closed his eyes
and he lowered his chin.
And they could come back and say,
well, that's not indicative of anything.
But this is how we use non-verbals, to let me know that
that which only the suspect knew affected him.
There's a certain amount of lying
that we have to do to get along with each other.
So we say that lying is a tool for social survival.
And because of that, we're actually pretty good at lying.
Most of us lie, the research says,
anywhere from three to five times an hour.
I hardly talk to anyone in an hour.
So I don't think I find myself lying so much.
But I know that if I'm having a bad day
and somebody says, hey, how are you?
I'll probably say, yeah, I'm okay, when I'm not.
I think the most effective liars
are the people who habitually lie.
One of the best liars I ever ran into
was a woman who was a spy.
She could tell stories like no one I've ever known,
they were so convincing.
You would ask her a question
and she would just be so fluid in her answers.
And of course she's describing something
that was taking place in Germany.
So it's not something that we could
go and check on the next day.
And she led us on for about a year.
The only thing that we can do to protect ourselves
from deception is what is being said, and what is the proof.
You begin to make an inquiry,
the story begins to fall apart,
or it causes a cognitive load.
Oh, so you went to Mexico, which airport did you land at?
Um, I, you know.
And then they struggle to come out with an answer.
Simple questions should evoke simple answers.
And when they create a cognitive load
then it's not indicative of deception,
but it should certainly make you wonder,
is there something wrong here?
One of the things about this woman spy,
who was in fact convicted to 25 years.
As soon as we were in Germany
and allowed to conduct the investigation
we could immediately see that the story was falling apart.
You can either accept a story as it's being told,
or you can make an effort to question it
to see if you can you verify it.
There's a lot of myths about body language.
But this one area, this area of deception,
we've gotta get away from this because this is no joke.
You can be sued for saying to somebody,
I think you're lying, when it's based on non-verbals.
And you can certainly ruin somebody's life.
In fact, I would say anybody that says I can help you
to detect deception is actually deceiving you
because there just simply is no science to support it.
All we can say is we're seeing behaviors
indicative of psychological discomfort.
And that is as far as you can go with that.
[dynamic music]
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
لماذا الاسحار والاذي بيتجدد تاني برغم عدم وجود تجديد
حرق الدهون/ خلاصة آلاف الابحاث فى ٣ نقاط لتتخلص من الدهون العنيدة نهائيا
أخطر من العقوبة والذنب متشغلش بالك بالناس !! الشيخ المربي محمد حسين يعقوب
Graco 395 Airless Paint Sprayer Review. Graco Ultra 395 PC.
مرتبات Data analysis فى الفيديو دة
99 DAYS NO FINASTERIDE! Main Changes in Mental and Sex Health
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)