Archive for September 2013

Incorrectness In Deception Detections


 

Human intelligence is the key to know when the information obtained is false. There is no clue or clue pattern that is specific to deception, although there are clues specific to emotion and cognition.

In general, behavioral clues are limited in their abilities to identify deception and that there are still behavioral measurement issues that may plague research on deception. Human beings cultivate what they hate, plan, and then execute terrorist attacks. Any information that can aid the intelligence or security officer to weigh the veracity of the information he or she obtains from suspected terrorists or those harboring them would help prevent attacks. This would then not only add another layer to force protection but would facilitate future intelligence gathering. Yet the face-to-face gathering of information through suspected terrorists, informants, or witnesses is replete with obstacles that affect its accuracy such as the well-documented shortcomings of human memory, honest differences of opinion, as well as outright deception.

In day-to-day life, most lies are betrayed by factors or circumstances surrounding the lie, and not by behavior. However, there are times when demeanor is all at our disposal to detect someone who is lying about current actions or future intent. Because a lie involves a deliberate, conscious behavior, we can speculate that this effort may leave some trace, sign, or signal that may betray that lie. What interests the society at large, is are there clues perceptible to the unaided eye that can reliably discriminate between liars and truth tellers; do these clues consistently predict deception across time, types of lies, different situations, and cultures; and if they are true, then how well can our counter-terrorism professionals make these judgments, and can they do this in real time, with or without technological assistance!

To date no researcher has documented a behavior or pattern of behaviors that in all people, across all situations, is specific to deception. All the behaviors identified and examined to date can also occur for reasons unrelated to deception. Generally speaking, detecting lies from behavior suggests two broad families of behavioral clues occur when someone is lying. They are clues related to liar’s memory and thinking about what they are saying known as cognitive clues, and clues related to liar’s feelings and feelings about deception called emotional clues.

A lie conceals, fabricates, or distorts information; this involves additional mental effort. The liar must think harder than a truth teller to cover up, create events that have not happened, or to describe events in a way to allow multiple interpretations. Additional mental effort is not solely the domain of the outright liar; however, a person who must tell an uncomfortable truth to another will also engage in additional mental effort to come up with the proper phrasing while simultaneously reducing the potential negative emotional reaction of the other. This extra effort tends to manifest itself with longer speech latencies, increased speech disturbances, less plausible content, less verbal and vocal involvement, less talking time, more repeated words and phrases, and so forth. Research has also shown that some nonverbal behaviors change as a result of this mental effort. For example, illustrators like hand or head movements that accompany speech, and are considered by many to be a part of speech will decrease when lying compared to telling the truth.

Another way in which cognition is involved in telling a lie is through identification of naturalistic memory characteristics. This means that experienced events have memory qualities that are apparent upon description that are different from events that have not been experienced. Events that were not actually experienced feature more ambivalence, have fewer details, a poorer logical structure, less plausibility, more negative statements, and are less embedded in context. Liars are also less likely to admit lack of memory and have less spontaneous corrections and may use more negative emotion words and fewer self and other references. Mental effort clues seem to occur more in the delivery of the lie, whereas memory recall clues tend to rest more in the content of the lie.

Not all lies will tax mental effort; for example, it is much less mentally taxing to answer a close ended question like “Did you pack your own bags?” with a yes or no than to answer an open ended “What do you intend to do on your trip?” Moreover, a clever liar can appear more persuasive if he or she substitutes an actual experienced event as their alibi rather than creating an entirely new event. This may be why a recent general review paper found consistent non-homogeneous effect sizes for these mental effort and memory-based cues across the studies they reviewed, as the particular paradigms used by researchers varied greatly in the extent to which the lies that were studied mentally taxed the liars.

Lies can also generate emotions, ranging from the excitement and pleasure of “pulling the wool over someone’s eyes” to fear of getting caught to feelings of guilt first suggested that emotions tend to manifest themselves in the facial expressions, as well as in the voice tones, and that these could be reliable enough to accurately identify emotional states. Research has since shown that for some expressions, for example, anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, distress, or surprise in all cultures throughout the planet recognize and express these emotions in both the face and voice similarly. To the extent that a lie features higher stakes for getting caught, we would expect to see more of these signs of emotion in liars compared to truth tellers. If the lie is a polite lie that people tell often and effortlessly, there would be less emotion involved. Meta-analytic studies suggest that liars do appear more nervous than truth tellers, with less facial pleasantness, higher vocal tension, higher vocal pitch, greater pupil dilation, and fidgeting. If the lie itself is about emotions, for example, telling someone that one feels calm, when in fact one is nervous; the research shows that signs of the truly felt emotion appear in the face and voice despite attempts to conceal, although these signs are often subtle and brief.


The Life I Envision




We only have one shot to make our world the place we want it to be. To make it something we can be proud of and something we would proudly hand over to the next generation. It is time we all looked at our everyday life and ask, "What can I do today that will help the next generation so they can live the life I envision?"

Each one of us can better this world. It is our accountability to strive to find solutions to the problems we inherited. We should see opportunities to inspire the next generation of leaders so that they too can enjoy our world and its entire splendor. We are all stewards of His creations. We have the liability to care for ourselves, our environment and for each other. Each day is a new opportunity to create a difference. We should become conscious of our personal talents and find ways to apply them to affect change. Take the time to show others how important it is to get involved and then lead by example. Problems can seem overwhelming on the surface, but if we address it with a sense of commitment and purpose; we will promptly see that we are not alone and that together we have what it takes to change the world.

Dwelling on the "how did this happen" deprive us of prized time that could be spent on creating the solution. Each one of us has the ability to envision the type of world and environment we would like to live in; it is within our reach to fulfill that vision. Anybody can make a difference… if I can, you can too. Ask yourself, "What would I like to see changed in my world?" and then ask yourself, "What can I do to make the change a reality?" We care about our environment and about all the living creatures in it. Seek ways to protect what we hold dear to us and ask others to do the same. Think about others first, including all the animals, before thinking about personal gain.

There is more to life than just you, try to see beyond the reflection in the mirror and look deeper and try to find a way to help those that are less fortunate. Anything is possible if you believe.


WHY AND HOW WE BECOME DEPRESSED?



Depression is one of the most prevalent psychological disorders. Depression can be caused by several factors, including interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relationships are the relationship between individuals and the reactions and emotions of each individual expressed directly and discreetly to each other. Common interpersonal relationships include (a) within the family, such as between the parents and between parents and children; (b) the social environment where differences in ethnicity and social class come into play; and (c) interactions between genders across age groups for both females and males.

Many people suffer from depression at one point in their life. It is inevitable, the feeling of hopelessness, sorrow, or being alone. These are all common emotions associated with depression. For a select few, depression can be hard to overcome, and this is where depression becomes a disorder that requires active treatment. Those ‘selected few’ account for over 100 million people worldwide and result in 75% of all psychiatric hospitalizations. Yet the question remains, why did these people become depressed? How did they become depressed? One of the answers that lead to the cause of depression would be a person’s interpersonal relationship with their surroundings and the people around them. There are many interpersonal instances that can have the ability to lead to the onset of depression, such as the family environment, the socialization setting, and the discrimination against gender in certain cultures and instances.

Out of all the interpersonal cases that can contribute on the onset of a depressive disorder, the ambiance of a family has the most weight and impact on a depressed individual. In the case of spouses, the well being of one spouse will have a notable impact on the other spouse and on the welfare of their marriage. For example, in 30% of all marriage problems, there is one spouse that can be described as clinically depressed. The reason why a spouse might have a unipolar mood disorder could be due to their relationship being characterized by friction, hostility, and a lack of affection. Marital distress can also be caused by the impact of having a child. When a woman is pregnant, she can experience a whole range of emotions due to the changing of interpersonal relationship with husband and the building of a new relationship with the unborn child. For example, the building of a new interpersonal relationship with the child can be very tasking and become a major stressful life event that can cause a mood disorder to develop.

Aside from the martial distresses of spouses, the impact of depressed parents can have an effect on their children as well. The depressed children of depressed mothers have more negative interpersonal behavior as compared with depressed children of non-depressed mothers. The parents of depressed children are less warm and caring and more hostile than parents of non-depressed children. Because of this negative interpersonal relation between kids and their parents, children can develop a negative view of their family. This negative view can lead to the feeling of lack of control and having a high risk of conflict, rejection, and low self-esteem.

Any changes in a family environment due to parental depression increase the risk of developing a mood disorder in children. The result of this can be found as early as preschoolers and infants, due to the insecure attachment they develop with their parents. The emotional distress of children can also have an effect on their parents, causing depression that in turn will also affect the children, theoretically creating a never-ending cycle unless they seek treatment. Sometimes, it is not the depressed parents that lead to the onset of depression in their children, but rather it is the change in the family environment that stems from the parents’ depression that causes the children to become depressed. The marital troubles are a better predicator for the onset of depression than the depression of the parents or the children themselves.

Experiencing depression while as a child or an adolescent can also lead to reoccurring slips as an adult. Depressed persons often perform poorly in marriage and relationship with family members and they also might respond negatively to others, which have the ability to create stressful life events, which as a result might drive the person further into depression. Depressed people are dependant on other people and constantly seek reassurance in such a way that drives people away. Many people believe that children and parents suffer differently from depression, but not so. Depressed children can be like depressed parents, expressing sadness, anger, shame, and self-directed hostility. Just like adults, depressed children tend to blame themselves for bad events and accredit the environment for good events. They do not give themselves credit when due. This is why oftentimes, children will feel guilty if their parents get divorced and they believe that they were at fault but realistically, it was the parents’ marital distress that was the cause of the divorce, not the children’s depressive mood disorder.

As in the family environment, socialization is vital to maintaining healthy relationship and feeling well deserved and part of someone’s life. Depression can have an adverse effect on the social capacity of depressed persons, affecting their social functioning and ability to react and deal with stressful situations. It is found that people with the symptoms of depression are found to test low in social activities, close relationships, quality close relationships, family actives, and network contact, yet they test high in family arguments. One major part in the development of mood disorders in a social setting would be how well one could deal with stressful events. Normally, this is called coping strategies and it allows a person to manage their troubles and not be overwhelmed. Oftentimes, people can become depressed when unable to deal with ‘drama’ from their friends-especially in children. Depressed children reported significantly higher level of hopelessness, lower general self-esteem, and lower coping skills than non-depressed children. Their ability to be unable to cope with stress can lead to fewer and less adaptive coping techniques.

Social settings can also include one-on-one interactions and the rejection that occurs. The affected people will have such an influence on other people. This influence could be described as responding negatively to their constant searching of reassurance and rejecting them, which in turn will confirm the affected person’s belief that he or she is unworthy as a person.

A depressed individual can impact their social settings by exhibiting a lack of self-esteem, becoming more sensitive to the opinions of others, and more importantly and interestingly, become less physically active. This means that they will not want to go out, that they do not want to exert themselves. A prime example of this would be an athletic in school that becomes depressed. He does not want to participate in athletic activities because he is depressed, but his coach forces him to. As a result, he performs poorly, and his teammates heckle him for his poor performance. As an affected person, the athletic becomes overly sensitive to his teammates’ heckling and his self-esteem plummets and he drops out of sports and begins to withdraw and fight with everybody he knows.

The social class can also have a subtle effect on depression. The females with children in the working class are more prone to depression than females with children in the middle class. This can be attributed to the working class mother having to leave home to work, having to leave her child alone. This interpersonal relation can cause excessive worry and guilt that the women is not being a good mother as compared to the middle class mom, who can afford to stay at home and take care of the children and her family.

The Asian Americans are more depressed in a social and academic setting because they face more pressure than their white American peers due to the fact that they are part of a visible minority that has different culture values than others. This interpersonal relationship between the two cultures can be defined as competitive and stressful due to the fact that in America, white people have it made while as other ethnic groups have to work twice as hard to get their foot in the door. This extreme indicator of stress can lead to the dejection of many ethnic groups because they might have failed at succeeding in a competitive environment.

There are a lot of interpersonal relations when it comes to gender, such as the discrimination against gender in an academic setting. This is very prominent in females, where girls can face increased expectations to conform to the standards set forth by society, to pursue feminine type activities and occupations. It appears that parents tend to have lower expectations for girls when it comes to school. As a result of that lowered expectations, parents tend to not push their daughters toward a high-profile job, instead attempting to make their daughter conform to the stereotype of society, like become a teacher or a nurse. In fact, in 1986-1987, women only garnered 15% of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in engineering as compared to 76% and 84% for education and nursing, respectively.

Breaking the social norm can also lead to depression. The more intelligent a girl is, the more likely she is to become depressed. This positive correlation could be attributed to the more intelligent girls being able to out-perform the boys yet get punished for doing so. Being depressed as a female adolescent can have consequences in the long run in terms of social functioning, career, and enjoyment of life. Theoretically, if one were to be depressed in high school, then their grades would suffer. If their grades were to suffer, then their chances of entering a good college will dwindle. If they cannot enter a top-notch college, then they might not be able to get the career they want, and with that they would not be able to enjoy their job and feel like they have missed out on life.

The different experiences of each gender can be the cause of a mood disorder. The experience can vary by the age of the children, adolescences, or adults. For example, after the age of 15, females are twice as likely to become depressed as compared with men. This rise of depressive disorders in females during the mid-to-late adolescence years is attributed to the more concerns a girl has as compared to boys. These concerns and worries can range from their achievements or lack of, body dissatisfaction, sexual abuse, and low self-esteem. This is reinforced by the prevalence of depression in girls increased to twice the prevalence of boys, but will taper off during 18-21 years of age for both genders.

Do not be mistaken that females are the only gender that can become depressed. A good number of males develop unipolar mood disorder. In the average lifetime, 49% of all males will experience a depressive episode as compared with 63% of all females. Males will become sad and dejected for different reasons, such as intimate relationships. When an intimate relationship ends, males are more likely to become depressed at the loss than females. This could be attributed to the male’s primal desire to have a mate so he will be able to continue his family name.

Depression has been around for a long time, spanning over thousands of years, dating back to the time of Saul, yet depression is a disorder that is hard to understand. Even with all the studies conducted, there is still not much to regarding the causes of depression. There are so many ways one would be able to become depressed, but the most common and most prevalent way thus far would be the interpersonal relationships of a person and their family, social lives, and the relationship between their gender and the discrimination they suffer at the hands of others. Perhaps a better understanding of those relationships can open up new avenues where new options for treatment can be conceived and new ways of interacting to people to create a equality amongst people where they will not feel depressed.


Life Is Beautifully Complex




  

Being beautiful has its rewards and these usually continue throughout adulthood. The secret of beauty and attractiveness is a quest of humans for as long as we became civilized. Many of us spend up to one-third of our income on looking good. Besides being popular, beautiful people get special attention from teachers, the legal system and employers. Good-looking people tend to make more money than their plain-Jane counterparts. A plainness penalty, punishing below-average-looks earn 9 percent less an hour.

We instinctively know what appeals to our own sense of beauty — we know it when we see it — defining what determines attractiveness is not easy. In frustration, we often give up and claim that beauty is in they eye of the beholder. Attractiveness is hard wired in our brains. Babies as young as 3 months identify and prefer faces that most adults would deem beautiful. Europeans can pick out the same beautiful Japanese faces as Japanese subjects. Japanese can agree on which European faces another Europeans will view as beautiful. Humans can even agree on the attractiveness of monkey faces, thus ruling out most unique racial, cultural and even species influences.

Facial recognition is a complex process. Computer facial recognition programs have been developed to analyze the subtle variations of things like the space between our eyes, the size of our noses and the proportions of our facial features. There are certain mathematical facial proportions that identify beautiful people. There is more to beauty than the mere arrangement of eyes, noses and chins. Our brains do much more than simply recognize a beautiful face. We can assess emotions, personality traits and fertility — as well as beauty — almost instantaneously. The human brain has special part called the fusiform, located in the back of the head near the spine. It is the same neural pathway needed to recognize faces of family, friends and people we have met. When it is damaged, the patients cannot recognize anyone, even people they have just met. They cannot discriminate between photographs of plain and beautiful faces.

When we recognize a face as "beautiful" we are actually making a judgement about the health and vitality of that individual. We interpret facial symmetry, that is to say, the similarity of left and right halves of a face and the smoothness of the skin to mean that a person has good genes and is free from diseases. This is part of what we mean by beautiful. Facial symmetry is one of the best observational indicators of good genes and healthy development and that these traits are what we mean when we say someone is attractive.

Facial asymmetry increases with the presence of genetic disturbances such as deleterious recessives and with homozygosity. Facial asymmetry increases with the exposure to environmental perturbations during development. Facial asymmetry is the inability of an individual to resist the disruptions in developmental symmetry. This implies a genetic weakness and less than optimum health. Bilateral symmetry is equated with heterozygosity and resistance to infection and debilitating pathogens. Bilateral symmetry and parasite resistance are factors that show optimum health and increase the success in intersexual and intrasexual competition.

The term homozygosity refers to the similarity of genetic characteristics that can cause a weakening of a species — such as occurs with in-breeding. Heterozygosity, on the other hand, is the result of genetic variety which is able to change and adapt to environmental conditions. The latter is believed to be more beneficial to a species.

Attractiveness from a female’s perspective is related to fertility of women, which causes hormonal changes in the brain that seek out strong testosterone traits in their potential mates. These traits are usually associated with aggressive behavior, risk taking and virility traits that are advantageous in the act of procreation. When women are assessing a man’s face for a marriage partner, they usually react to a man with a wide smile, small eyes, a big nose and a large jaw. This is thought to indicate a strong testosterone level, a potentially good provider and protector for family life. Younger women rely more on the physical attractiveness of a man than do older women. The latter incorporate such things as wealth, stability, power and faithfulness in their definition of attractive.

Attractiveness from a male’s perspective for ideal face of an attractive woman, prefer younger proportions because these child-like faces stimulate emotions of caring and protection. These emotions seem to be more significant than sexual urges and procreation in men. This can be in the psychological realm that dangerously approaches pathology and the law. Yet this "lolita" proclivity is hard wired.

When it comes to body proportions, most men usually like big breasts and hips; again linked to the ability to bare and nurture offspring. Estrogen, the hormone associated with female fertility, encourages fat deposits around the buttocks and thighs. Full buttocks and a narrow waist send out the same message as the ideal face. The woman is full of estrogen and very fertile. Dr Michael Cunningham of Elmhurst College, Illinois found that if a male is judging a female in an interview for a job, a woman with expressive eyebrows and dilated pupils has the edge and is likely to be considered more competent. The same features would not be judged as attractive if the same man was looking for a mate. Cunningham also found that attractive women with mature features, such as small eyes and a large nose, received more respect from men.

A face with average proportions always looks more beautiful than a unique, individual face. Average features make the faces more attractive than any specific face. The average face is easy for the brain to recognize and require less analysis and processing in the fusiform. This ease of recognition is perceived as attractiveness. But this idea is recently disproved by Dr David Perrett, of the University of St Andrews, who found that individual faces were judged more attractive than the composites. This would account for the popularity of actresses such as Brigitte Nielsen and Daryl Hannah, who have features that are far from average.

Psychologist David Perrett found that young men and women prefer faces that most resemble their mothers and fathers. Members of a close family also often share the interpretation of certain facial characteristics in judging someone’s personality. Although this does not relate directly with beauty or attractiveness, it demonstrates that some aspects of evaluating facial characteristics is learned.

My own take on this is that it is a matter of nature versus nurture. Various centers of our hard wired brain, like the fusiform, compete to control our daily decisions. One center is concerned with mate selection based on physical traits. Others brain regions respond to a potential mate who is also intelligent, honest, faithful, kind and sane. Attractiveness, in the end, actually is unique to each individual. It should be said that, "beauty is in the eyes (plural) of the beholder." It is more a matter of left and right brain politics and both hemispheres must work together to attract us to the perfect mate, as they usually do.

According to Science Daily, men with large jaws, flaring cheeks and large eyebrows are sexy, at least in the eyes of our ancestors. Facial attractiveness plays a major role in shaping human evolution. Our choice of sexual partner has shaped the human face. The face holds the secret to determining the sex of our ancestors and what makes us attractive to the opposite sex for reproduction.

According to paleontologists at the Natural History Museum, men evolved short faces between the brow and upper lip, which exaggerates the size of their jaw, the flare of their cheeks and their eyebrows. The shorter and broader male face has also evolved alongside and the canine teeth have shrunk, so men look less threatening to competitors, yet attractive to mates.

At puberty, the region between the mouth and eyebrows, known as upper facial height, develops differently in men and women. Unlike other facial features, however, this difference cannot be explained simply in terms of men being bigger than women. In spite of their larger size, men have an upper face similar in height to a female face, but much broader. These differences can be found throughout human history. As a result, a simple ratio of measures could be used to calculate facial attractiveness in a biological and mathematical way. In fact, scientists recently invented a computer program that can recognize attractiveness.

Dr Eleanor Weston, paleontologist at the Natural History Museum is of the opinion that the evolution of facial appearance is central to understanding what makes men and women attractive to each other. It is discovered that the distance between the lip and brow is immensely important to what made homosapiens attractive in the past, as it does now.


Telling The Truth Falsely



The synonyms falsehood and untruth is often substituted as relatively euphemistic. It is easy to call an untruthful person a liar if he is disliked, but very hard to use that term, despite his untruthfulness, if he is liked or admired. Many people for example, those who provide false information unwittingly are untruthful without lying. A woman who has the paranoid delusion that she is Mary Magdalene is not a liar, although her claim is untrue. Giving a client bad investment advice is not lying unless the advisor knew when giving the advice that it was untrue. Someone whose appearance conveys a false impression is not necessarily lying. A praying mantis camouflaged to resemble a leaf is not lying, any more than a man whose high forehead suggested more intelligence than he possessed would be lying.

A liar can choose not to lie. Misleading the victim is deliberate; the liar intends to misinform the victim. The lie may or may not be justified, in the opinion of the liar or the community. The liar may be a good or a bad person, liked or disliked. But the person who lies could choose to lie or not. It is interesting to guess about the basis of such stereotypes. The high forehead presumably refers, incorrectly, to a large brain. The stereotype that a thin-lipped person is cruel is based on the accurate clue that lips do narrow in anger. The error is in utilizing a sign of a temporary emotional state as the basis for judging a personality trait. Such a judgment implies that thin-lipped people look that way because they are narrowing their lips in anger continuously; but thin lips can also be a permanent, inherited facial feature. The stereotype that a thick-lipped person is sensual in a similar way misconstrues the accurate clue that lips thicken, engorged with blood during sexual arousal, into an inaccurate judgment about a permanent trait; but again, thick lips can be a permanent facial feature to be truthful, and knows the difference between the two.

Pathological liars who know they are being untruthful but cannot control their behavior do not meet this requirement nor would people who do not even know they are lying, those said to be victims of self-deceit. A liar may come over time to believe in her own lie. If that happens she would no longer be a liar, and her untruths should be much harder to detect. An incident in Mussolini’s life shows that belief in one’s own lie may not always be so beneficial. In 1938, the composition of Italian army divisions had been reduced from three regiments to two. This appealed to Mussolini because it enabled him to say that fascism had sixty divisions instead of barely half as many, but the change caused enormous disorganization just when the war was about to begin; and because he forgot what he had done, several years later he tragically miscalculated the true strength of his forces. It seems to have deceived few other people except him.

It is not just the liar that must be considered in defining a lie but the liar’s target as well. In a lie the target has not asked to be misled, nor has the liar given any prior notification of an intention to do so. It would be bizarre to call actors liars. Their audience agrees to be misled, for a time; that is why they are there. Actors do not impersonate, as does the con man, without giving notice that it is a pose put on for a time. A customer would not knowingly follow the advice of a broker who said he would be providing convincing but false information.

While there is not dispute about the existence of pathological liars and individuals who are victims of self-deceit, it is difficult to establish. Certainly the liar’s word cannot be taken as evidence. Once discovered, any liar might make such claims to lessen punishment. In the definition of a lie or deceit, then, one person intends to mislead another, doing so deliberately, without prior notification of this purpose, and without having been explicitly asked to do so by the target. There are two primary ways to lie: to conceal and to falsify. In concealing, the liar withholds some information without actually saying anything untrue. In falsifying, an additional step is taken. Not only does the liar withhold true information, but he presents false information as if it were true. Often it is necessary to combine concealing and falsifying to pull off the deceit, but sometimes a liar can get away just with concealment.

Not everyone considers concealment to be lying; some people reserve that word only for the bolder act of falsification. If the doctor does not tell the patient that the illness is terminal, if the husband does not mention that he spent his lunch hour at a motel with his wife’s best friend, if the policeman doesn’t tell the suspect that a "bug" is recording the conversation with his lawyer, no false information has been transmitted, yet each of these examples meets definition of lying. The targets did not ask to be misled; and the concealers acted deliberately without giving prior notification of their intent to mislead. Information was withheld wittingly, with intent, not by accident. There are exceptions; times when concealment is not lying because prior notification was given or consent to be misled was obtained.

The barefaced lies, ones for which there can be unquestionable evidence that the teller knew he lied and willfully did so. There is hardly a legitimate everyday vocation or relationship whose performers do not engage in concealed practices which are incompatible with fostered impressions. Concealing the assignation at the motel will not be a lie. If the patient asks the doctor not to be told if the news is bad, concealing that information is not a lie. By legal definition, however, a suspect and attorney have the right to private conversation; concealing the violation of that right will always be a lie.

When there is a choice about how to lie, liars usually prefer concealing to falsifying. There are many advantages. For one thing, concealing usually is easier than falsifying. Nothing has to be made up. There is no chance of getting caught without having the whole story worked out in advance. Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said that he didn’t have a good enough memory to be a liar. If a doctor gives a false explanation of a patient’s symptoms in order to conceal that the illness is terminal, the doctor will have to remember his false account in order not to be inconsistent when asked again a few days later.

Concealment may also be preferred because it seems less reprehensible than falsifying. It is passive, not active. Even though the target may be equally harmed, liars may feel less guilt about concealing than falsifying. The liar can maintain the reassuring thought that the target really knows the truth but does not want to confront it. Concealment lies are also much easier to cover afterward if discovered. The liar does not go as far out on a limb.

There are many available excuses of ignorance, the intent to reveal it later, memory failure, and so on. The person testifying under oath who says "to the best of my recollection" provides an out if later faced with something he has concealed. The claim not to remember what the liar does remember and is deliberately withholding is intermediate between concealment and falsification. It happens when the liar can no longer simply not say anything; a question has been raised, a challenge made. By falsifying only a failure to remember, the liar avoids having to remember a false story; all that needs to be remembered is the untrue claim to a poor memory. And, if the truth later comes out, the liar can always claim not to have lied about it, that it was just a memory problem.

A memory failure is credible only in limited circumstances. The doctor asked if the tests were negative can’t claim not to remember, nor can the policeman if asked by the suspect whether the room is bugged. A memory loss can be claimed only for insignificant matters, or something that happened some time ago. Even the passage of time may not justify a failure to remember extraordinary events, which anyone would be expected to recall no matter when they happened. A liar loses the choice whether to conceal or falsify once challenged by the victim. If the wife asks her husband why she couldn’t reach him at lunch, the husband has to falsify to maintain his secret affair. One could argue that even the usual dinner table question "How was your day?" is a request for information, but it can be dodged. The husband can mention other matters concealing the assignation unless a directed inquiry forces him to choose between falsifying or telling the truth.

Some lies from the outset require falsification; concealment alone will not do. The psychiatric patient not only had to conceal distress and suicide plans, the patient also had to falsify feeling better and the wish to spend the weekend with the family. Lying about previous experience to obtain a job can’t be done by concealment alone. Not only must inexperience be concealed, but the relevant job history must be fabricated. Escaping a boring party without offending the host requires not only concealing the preference to watch TV at home but the falsification of an acceptable excuse, an early-morning appointment, babysitter problems, like or the.

Falsification also occurs, even though the lie does not directly require it, to help the liar cover evidence of what is being concealed. This use of falsification to mask what is being concealed is especially necessary when emotions must be concealed. It is easy to conceal an emotion no longer felt, much harder to conceal an emotion felt at the moment, especially if the feeling is strong. Terror is harder to conceal than worry, just as rage is harder to conceal than annoyance. The stronger the emotion, the more likely it is that some sign of it will leak despite the liar’s best attempt to conceal it. Putting on another emotion, one that is not felt can help disguise the felt emotion being concealed. Falsifying an emotion can cover the leakage of a concealed emotion.

The best way to conceal strong emotions is with a mask. Covering the face or part of it with one’s hand or turning away from the person one is talking to usually can’t be done without giving the lie away. The best mask is a false emotion. It not only misleads, but it is the best camouflage. It is terribly hard to keep the face impassive or the hands inactive when an emotion is felt strongly. Looking unemotional, cool, or neutral is the hardest appearance to maintain when emotions are felt. It is much easier to put on a pose, to stop or counter with another set of actions those actions that are expressions of the felt emotion.

Not every situation allows the liar to mask the felt emotion. Some lies require the much more difficult task of concealing emotions without falsifying. Poker is another situation in which masking cannot be used to conceal emotions. When a player becomes excited about the prospect of winning a large pot because of the superb hand he has drawn, he must conceal any sign of his excitement so the other players do not fold. Masking with the sign of any other emotion will be dangerous. If he tries to hide his excitement by looking disappointed or irritated, others will think he drew badly and will expect him to fold, not stay in. He must look blankly poker faced. If he decides to conceal his disappointment or irritation at a bad draw by bluffing, trying to force the others to fold, he might be able to use a mask. By falsifying happiness or excitement he could hide his disappointment and add to the impression that he has a good hand. It won’t be believable to the other players unless they consider him a novice. An experienced poker player is supposed to have mastered the talent of not showing any emotion about his hand.

Any emotion can be falsified to help conceal any other emotion. The smile is the mask most frequently employed. It serves as the opposite of all the negative emotions, fear, anger, distress, disgust, and so on. It is selected often because some variation on happiness is the message required to pull off many deceits. The disappointed employee must smile if the boss is to think he isn’t hurt or angry about being passed over for promotion. The cruel friend should pose as well-meaning as she delivers her cutting criticism with a concerned smile.

Another reason why the smile is used so often to mask is because smiling is part of the standard greeting and is required frequently throughout most polite exchanges. If a person feels terrible, it usually should not be shown or acknowledged during a greeting exchange. Instead, the unhappy person is expected to conceal negative feelings. Another style used by professionals is the animated players constantly chat throughout the game to make their opponents anxious and nervous. . . . Truths are told as lies and lies are told as truths coupled with babbling on verbal performance, animated and exaggerated gestures. The true feelings will probably go undetected, not because the smile is such a good mask but because in polite exchanges people rarely care how the other person actually feels. All that is expected is a pretense of amiability and pleasantness. Others rarely scrutinize such smiles carefully. People are accustomed to overlooking lies in the context of polite greetings. One could argue that it is wrong to call these lies; because the implicit rules of polite greetings provide notification that true accounts of emotions will not be given.

Still another reason for the popularity of the smile as a mask is that it is the easiest of the facial expressions of emotions to make voluntarily. Well before the age of one, infants can deliberately smile. It is one of the very earliest expressions used by the infant in a deliberate fashion to please others. Throughout life, social smiles falsely present feelings not felt but required or useful to show. Mistakes may be made in the timing of these unfelt smiles; they may be too quick or too slow. Mistakes may be evident also in the location of the smiles; they may occur too soon before or too long after the word or phrase they should accompany. But the smiling movements themselves are easy to make, which is not so for the expression of all the other emotions.

The negative emotions are harder for most people to falsify. It is found that most people cannot voluntarily move the particular muscles needed to realistically falsify distress or fear. Anger and disgust are a little easier to display when they are not felt, but mistakes are often made. If the lie requires falsifying a negative emotion rather than a smile, the deceiver may have difficulty. There are exceptions; Hitler evidently was a superb performer, easily able to convincingly falsify negative emotions.

Another, related technique is to tell the truth but with a twist, so the victim does not believe it. It is telling the truth falsely. A close relative of telling the truth falsely is a half-concealment. The truth is told, but only partially. Understatement, or leaving out the crucial item, allows the liar to maintain the deceit while not saying anything untrue. Another technique that allows the liar to avoid saying anything untrue is the incorrect-inference dodge. A newspaper columnist gave a humorous account of how to use this dodge to solve the familiar problem of what to say when you don’t like a friend’s work. You are at the opening of your friend’s art exhibition. You think the work is dreadful, but before you can sneak out your friend rushes over and asks you what you think. “‘Jerry,’ you say (assuming the artist in question is named Jerry), gazing deep into his eyes as though overcome by emotion, ‘Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.’ Maintain the clasp; maintain the eye contact. Ten times out of ten Jerry will finally break your grip, mumble a modest phrase or two, and move on. There’s the high-tone artcrit third-person-invisible two-step, thus: ‘Jerry. Jer-ry. What can one say?’ Or the more deceptively low-key: ‘Jerry. Words fail me.’ Or the somewhat more ironic: ‘Jerry. Everyone, everyone, is talking about it. The virtue of this gambit, like the half-concealment and telling the truth falsely, is that the liar is not forced to say anything untrue. I consider them lies nevertheless, because there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the target without prior notification given to the target.

Any of these lies can be betrayed by some aspect of the deceiver’s behavior. There are two kinds of clues to deceit. A mistake may reveal the truth, or it may only suggest that what was said or shown is untrue without revealing the truth. When a liar mistakenly reveals the truth, I call it leakage. When the liar’s behavior suggests he or she is lying without revealing the truth, I call it a deception clue. If Mary’s doctor notes that she is wringing her hands as she tells him she feels fine, he would have a deception clue, reason to suspect she is lying. He would not know how she really felt she might be angry at the hospital, disgusted with herself, or fearful about her future unless he obtained leakage. A facial expression, tone of voice, slip of the tongue, or certain gestures could leak her true feelings.

A deception clue answers the question of whether or not the person is lying, although it does not reveal what is being concealed. Only leakage would do that. Often it does not matter. When the question is whether or not a person is lying, rather than what is being concealed, a deception clue is good enough. Leakage is not needed. What information is being held back can be figured out or is irrelevant. If the employer senses through a deception clue that the applicant is lying, that may be sufficient, and no leakage of what is being concealed may be needed for the decision not to hire a job applicant who lies. But it is not always enough. It may be important to know exactly what has been concealed. Discovering that a trusted employee embezzled may be insufficient. A deception clue could suggest that the employee lied; it might have led to a confrontation and a confession. Yet even though the matter has been settled, the employee discharged, the prosecution completed, the employer might still seek leakage. He might still want to know how the employee did it, and what he did with the money he embezzled.

Sometimes leakage provides only part of the information the victim wants to know, betraying more than a deception clue but not all that is being concealed. Lying is defined as a deliberate choice to mislead a target without giving any notification of the intent to do so. There are two major forms of lying: concealment, leaving out true information; and falsification, or presenting false information as if it were true. Other ways to lie include: misdirecting, acknowledging an emotion but misidentifying what caused it; telling the truth falsely, or admitting the truth but with such exaggeration or humor that the target remains uninformed or misled; half-concealment, or admitting only part of what is true, so as to deflect the target’s interest in what remains concealed; and the incorrect-inference dodge, or telling the truth but in a way that implies the opposite of what is said. There are two kinds of clues to deceit: leakage, when the liar inadvertently reveals the truth; and deception clues, when the liar’s behavior reveals only that what he says is untrue. Both leakage and deception clues are mistakes. They do not always happen. Not all lies fail.


Behavioral Clues to Deceit


When the situation seems to be exactly what it appears to be, the closest likely alternative is that the situation has been completely faked; when fakery seems extremely evident, the next most probable possibility is that nothing fake is present. The relevant framework is not one of morality but of survival. At every level, from brute camouflage to poetic vision, the linguistic capacity to conceal, misinform, leave ambiguous, hypothesize, invent is indispensable to the equilibrium of human consciousness and to the development of man in society. If falsehood, like truth, had only one face, we would be in better shape; for we would take as certain the opposite of what the liar said. But the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand shapes and a limitless field.

It is September 15, 1938, and one of the most infamous and deadly of deceits is about to begin. Adolf Hitler, the chancellor of Germany, and Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister of Great Britain, meet for the first time. The world watches, aware that this may be the last hope of avoiding another world war. Just six months earlier Hitler’s troops had marched into Austria, annexing it to Germany. England and France had protested but done nothing further. On September 12, three days before he is to meet Chamberlain, Hitler demands to have part of Czechoslovakia annexed to Germany and incites rioting in that country. Hitler has already secretly mobilized the German Army to attack Czechoslovakia, but his army won’t be ready until the end of September.

If he can keep the Czechoslovakians from mobilizing their army for a few more weeks, Hitler will have the advantage of a surprise attack. Stalling for time, Hitler conceals his war plans from Chamberlain, giving his word that peace can be preserved if the Czechoslovakians will meet his demands. Chamberlain is fooled; he tries to persuade the Czechoslovakians not to mobilize their army while there is still a chance to negotiate with Hitler. After his meeting with Hitler, Chamberlain writes to his sister, ". . . in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness in thought I saw in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word. . . ."] Defending his policies against those who doubt Hitler’s word, Chamberlain five days later in a speech to Parliament explains that his personal contact with Hitler allows him to say that Hitler "means what he says.

The facial expressions are universal while gestures are specific to each culture. When we ask whether these nonverbal behaviors could reveal that a patient was lying! Usually that is not an issue, but it becomes one when patients admitted to the hospital because of suicide attempts say they are feeling much better. Every doctor dreads being fooled by a patient who commits suicide once freed from the hospital’s restrain. This practical concern raise a very fundamental question about human communication: can people, even when they are very upset, control the messages they give off, or will their nonverbal-behavior leak what is concealed by their words?

Searching films of interviews with psychiatric patients for an instance of lying done to isolate expressions and gestures that might help in diagnosing the severity and type of mental disorders, in one case there was no doubt because of what happened after the interview. Mary was a forty-two-year-old housewife. The last of her three suicide attempts was quite serious. It was only an accident that someone found her before an overdose of sleeping pills killed her. Her history is not much different from that of many other women who suffer a midlife depression. The children had grown up and didn’t need her. Her husband seemed preoccupied with his work. Mary felt useless. By the time she had entered the hospital, she no longer could handle the house, could not sleep well, and sat by herself crying much of the time. In her first three weeks in the hospital, she received medication and group therapy. She seemed to respond very well: her manner brightened, and she no longer talked of committing suicide.

In one of the interviews filmed, Mary told the doctor how much better she felt and asked for a weekend pass. Before receiving the pass, she confessed that she had been lying to get it. She still desperately wanted to kill herself. After three more months in the hospital, Mary had genuinely improved, although there was a relapse a year later. She has been out of the hospital and apparently well for many years. The filmed interview with Mary fooled most of the young and even many of the experienced psychiatrists and psychologists to whom it was shown. This filmed interview was studied for hundreds of hours, going over it again and again, inspecting each gesture and expression in slow-motion to uncover any possible clues to deceit. In a moment’s pause, before replying to her doctor’s question about her plans for the future, it was seen only in slow-motion a fleeting facial expression of despair, so quick that many had missed seeing it the first few times. Once researchers had the idea that concealed feelings might be evident in these very brief micro-expressions, many more were found; typically covered in an instant by a smile. Researchers also found a micro-gesture. When telling the doctor how well she was handling her problems, Mary sometimes showed a fragment of a shrug not the whole thing, just a part of it. She would shrug with just one hand, rotating it a bit. Her hands would be quiet but there would be a momentary lift of one shoulder.

Researchers also saw other nonverbal clues to deceit, but one could not be certain whether it was discovered or imagining them. Perfectly innocent behavior seems suspicious if you know someone has lied. Only objective measurement, uninfluenced by knowledge of whether a person was lying or telling the truth, could test what is found. Many people had to be studied to be certain that the clues to deceit are not idiosyncratic. It would be simpler for the person trying to spot a lie, the lie catcher, if behaviors that betray one person’s deceit are also evident when another persons lies; but the signs of deceit might be peculiar to each person. Can these findings or methods be used to catch Americans suspected of being spies? Over the years, as findings on behavioral clues to deceit between patient and doctor were published in scientific journals, the inquiries increased. How about training those who guard cabinet officers so they could spot a terrorist bent on assassination from his gait or gestures? Can we show the FBI how to train police officers to spot better whether a suspect is lying? It is no longer a surprise when asked if we could help summit negotiators spot their opponents’ lies, or if one could tell from the photographs of Patricia Hearst taken while she participated in a bank hold-up if she was a willing or unwilling robber.

The nonverbal clues to deceit would not often be evident in most criminal, political, or diplomatic deceits. One has to learn why people ever do make mistakes when they lie? Not all lies fail. Some are performed flawlessly. Behavioral clues to deceit; a facial expression held too long, missing gestures, a momentary turn in the voice don’t have to happen. There need be no telltale signs that betray the liar. Yet, there can be clues to deceit. The most determined liars may be betrayed by their own behavior. Knowing when lies will succeed and when they will fail, how to spot clues to deceit and when it isn’t worth trying, means understanding how lies, liars, and lie catchers differ. Hitler’s lie to Chamberlain and Mary’s to her doctor both involved deadly serious deceits, in which the stakes were life itself. Both people concealed future plans, and both put on emotions they didn’t feel as a central part of their lie. But the differences between their lies are enormous. Hitler is an example of what is described as a natural performer. Apart from his inherent skill, Hitler was also much more practiced in deceit than Mary. Hitler also had the advantage of deceiving someone who wanted to be misled. Chamberlain was a willing victim who wanted to believe Hitler’s lie that he did not plan war if only the borders of Czechoslovakia were redrawn to meet his demands. Otherwise Chamberlain would have had to admit that his policy of appeasement had failed and in fact weakened his country. On a related matter, the political scientist, Roberta Wohlstetter made this point in her analysis of cheating in arms races.

Discussing Germany’s violations of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1936, she said, "The cheater and the side cheated had stakes in allowing the error to persist. They both need to preserve the illusion that the agreement has not been violated. The British fear of an arms race, manipulated so skillfully by Hitler, led to a Naval Agreement, in which the British without consulting the French or the Italians tacitly revised the Versailles Treaty; and London’s fear of an arms race prevented it from recognizing or acknowledging violations of the new agreement.

In many deceits, the victim overlooks the liar’s mistakes, giving ambiguous behavior the best reading, collusively helping to maintain the lie, to avoid the terrible consequences of uncovering the lie. By overlooking the signs of his wife’s affairs a husband may at least postpone the humiliation of being exposed as a cuckold and the possibility of divorce. Even if he admits her infidelity to himself, he may cooperate in not uncovering her lies to avoid having to acknowledge it to her or to avoid a showdown. As long as nothing is said he can still have the hope, no matter how small, that he may have misjudged her, that she may not be having an affair.

Not every victim is so willing. At times, there is nothing to be gained by ignoring or cooperating with a lie. The lie catchers gain only by exposing a lie and if they do so lose nothing. The police interrogator only loses if he is taken in, as does the bank loan officer, and both do their job well only by uncovering the liar and recognizing the truthful. Often, the victim gains and loses by being misled or by uncovering the lie; but the two may not be evenly balanced. Mary’s doctor had only a small stake in believing her lie. If she was no longer depressed, he could take some credit for affecting her recovery. But if she has not truly recovered, he suffered no great loss. Unlike Chamberlain, the doctor’s entire career was not at stake; he had not publicly committed himself, despite challenge, to a judgment that could be proven wrong if he uncovered her lie. He had much more to lose by being taken in than he could gain if she was being truthful.

If Hitler was untrustworthy, if there was no way to stop his aggression short of war, then Chamberlain’s career was over, and the war he thought he could prevent would begin. Quite apart from Chamberlain’s motives to believe Hitler, the lie was likely to succeed because no strong emotions had to be concealed. Most lies fail because some sign of an emotion being concealed leaks. The stronger the emotions involved in the lie and the greater the number of different emotions, the more likely it is that the lie will be betrayed by some form of behavioral leakage. Hitler certainly would not have felt guilt, an emotion that is doubly problematic for the liar not only may signs of it leak, but the torment of guilt may motivate the liar to make mistakes so as to be caught. Hitler would not feel guilty about lying to the representative of the country that had in his lifetime imposed a humiliating military defeat on Germany. Unlike Mary, Hitler did not share important social values with his victim; he did not respect or admire him. Mary had to conceal strong emotions for her lie to succeed. She had to suppress the despair and anguish motivating her suicide wish. Mary had every reason to feel guilty about lying to her doctors: she liked them, admired them, and knew they only wanted to help her.

For all these reasons and more it usually will be far easier to spot behavioral clues to deceit in a suicidal patient or a lying spouse than in a diplomat or a double agent. But not every diplomat, criminal, or intelligence agent is a perfect liar. Mistakes are sometimes made. The analyses made allow one to estimate the chances of being able to spot clues to deceit or being misled. The message to those interested in catching political or criminal lies is not to ignore behavioral clues but to be more cautious, more aware of the limitations and the opportunities.

While there is some evidence about the behavioral clues to deceit; it is not yet firmly established. Analyses of how and why people lie and when lies fail fit the evidence from experiments on lying and from historical and fictional accounts. But there has not yet been time to see how these theories will weather the test of further experiment and critical argument. Where the stakes for a mistake are the highest, attempts are being made to spot nonverbal clues to deceit. Experts unfamiliar with all the evidence and arguments are offering their services as lie spotters in jury selection and employment interviews.

Some policemen and professional polygraphists using the “lie detector” are taught about the nonverbal clues to deceit. About half the information in the training materials is wrong. Customs officials attend a special course in spotting the nonverbal clues of smuggling. It is also impossible to know what the intelligence agencies are doing, for their work is secret. It is a worry about "experts" who go unchallenged by public scrutiny and the carping critics of the scientific community.

It is believed that examining how and when people lie and tell the truth can help in understanding many human relationships. There are few that do not involve deceit or at least the possibility of deceit. Parents lie to their children about sex to spare them knowledge they think their children are not ready for, just as their children, when they become adolescents, will conceal sexual adventures because the parents won’t understand. Lies occur between friends; even your best friend won’t tell you, teacher and student, doctor and patient, husband and wife, witness and jury, lawyer and client, salesperson and customer.

Lying is such a central characteristic of life that better understanding of it is relevant to almost all human affairs. Some might shudder at that statement, because they view lying as reprehensible. I do not share that view. It is too simple to hold that no one in any relationship must ever lie; nor it is recommended that every lie be unmasked. Advice columnist, Ann Landers has a point when she advises her readers that truth can be used as a bludgeon, cruelly inflicting pain. Lies can be cruel too, but all lies aren’t. Some lies, many fewer than liars will claim, are altruistic. Some social relationships are enjoyed because of the myths they preserve. But no liar should presume too easily that a victim desires to be misled. No lie catcher should too easily presume the right to expose every lie. Some lies are harmless, even humane. Unmasking certain lies may humiliate the victim or a third party. But all of this must be considered in more detail, and after many other issues have been discussed. The place to begin is with a definition of lying, description of the two basic forms of lying, and the two kinds of clues to deceit.

You Have To Have It to Give It




In this world, if you are going to give somebody a present, you must first have the gift, before you can give it. Though the focus of the contemplation is of “mental” giving, the same rule applies. To offer a thought to someone, it first must be in your mind before you can give it. You have to have it to give it. It must come from you. Even though someone else triggers the thought, you are the source.

We want to make the outside world our “cause” and thus its “effect” becomes its responsibility. That stance is easy for the negative situations; you can be quite comfortable with other people or situations making you upset, but what about the love. What about those loving thoughts don’t they come from the same place?

The contemplation has great power. Watch yourself and notice what you give and where it source is located. You consider taking ownership of your mood, your state of mind. Consider letting go of blaming the world for what is really going on inside of you. Consider that you have the power to change what you give it.

Let us see what happens when we play with this idea of contemplation, when we work with it, when we use it. The one thought that would be really quite powerful is, “To give, you must first have.” Now that is a very obvious thing to say. In our world, if you are going to give somebody a birthday present, first of all you have the gift, wrapped up or not wrapped up; you have to have the gift, before you can give it. This is not really what the focus is here. The focus is if you have a loving thought that you are offering to someone, or if you have joy that you are offering to someone, or are extending, or if you have anger and any of the negative feelings, it first must be in your self before you can give it. You have to have it to give it.

So that is a contemplation that takes you in a lot of directions. Somebody cuts you off in traffic, and you feel so angry at them, so upset with them, and you think, to give that anger, to give get upset, I first must have had it inside of me. It must already have been there. You know that is true because there are times when somebody cuts you off in a line, or butts in – any of those things – and many, many, many times you just look at them and let it happen and it is of no consequence. Then, there are those times when you are in traffic or somebody cuts you off and it is of consequence. Thinking about the fact that the anger was already present, is a very helpful thing. To extend that anger, to give it, it must already have been present within you. You take ownership of your mood, your state of mind. You cannot blame that other person or that other situation for what is really going on inside of you.

It is also great when you find that you are filled with a wonderful state of peace or love or joy or all three of them together, for when you are filled with that, you realize that you are just radiating it like the sun radiates light and heat. You radiate it. So that means, to give it, to give it off, to extend it, it must already be inside of you.

That is a wonderful contemplation. Just be with it; to give you must have, you must first have it. To realize that the times you have been upset, the times you have been triggered by someone, you must already have had the state within you, for that to come out of you. At the same time, and I have seen this a lot in Reiki, when someone comes for a Reiki session they are upset over some big, deep trauma or some major thing happening in their life, they are feeling very sad. They get Reiki. You put your hands all over their body and give them Reiki energy and balance them out, it balances them out. Then they just exude a sweet peacefulness. Well we didn’t give them peacefulness. Reiki didn’t give them peacefulness. All Reiki did was balance and clear out the fog bank that was over-top of the true state of the person; the true state that we all carry.

The negative state and the love are already present for you to give it. What you want to get rid of is all that negativity, just release it. Own it as yours and let it go. Let it go so that the inner darkness is moved out and what rises up, that you give and radiate, just by being yourself, is already present.

To give it, you must have it. I hope this is helpful. Peace to you.


%d bloggers like this: