Para calcular a classificação geral de estrelas e a análise percentual por estrela, não usamos uma média simples. Em vez disso, nosso sistema considera coisas como se uma avaliação é recente e se o avaliador comprou o item na Amazon. Ele também analisa avaliações para verificar a confiabilidade.
First of all I deeply respect the author and his fascinating work and studies!! As a pathological liar it took me 3 years to retrain myself and to even recognize that I have a real problem. Now as far as the book, I’m not in love with it as much as I love the subject and as much as I love the truth now - just from a perspective of a recovered psychological liar, it is truly a fascinating art! And I agree on so many points that the author makes! This book is incredibly diluted in terms of actual useful guides and information. If you really like his work, he does offer an online training, which I believe, will be of much better value and if you want to actually study scientifically.
This is the kind of book that in the old days when we had bookstores that you could pick up and skim in about 10 minutes standing at the store..
Starts off strong and sounds like it will be really scientifically supported. Then it doesn't ever really give much support for anything and gets into some lengthy tangents- Nixon etc. Then towards the end the writer shows his hand and says that yes there is some good technical liecatching techniques he can teach you, but you will have to go to his website to buy that instruction.
This book takes a great many words to say very little. Or, what feels like very little. (Maybe since I live in a low trust society as of this writing, these things are very obvious.)
Even 91 pages into the book, the author has only gone over three case studies (and not in any great detail). The first, the study of a woman who tried to lie to get out of a mental hospital in order to kill herself and the second of some nursing students who lied about watching some gory videos. The third was about a women who was subconsciously giving an interviewer the finger. Even speaking as someone who is on the lower end of the EQ distrubtion, I don't think that much of what was said here is something that has not been figured out by a person of average intelligence who has lived through his 20s. (For example, p. 92, when people are lying they are likely to "uh uh uh" and "ah ah ah." His description of this blindingly obvious fact went on for 3 paragraphs.)
He quotes Sigumd Freud (p. 88-89). In case you didn't think anyone paid attention to him anymore, there is at least one working psychologist who still pays attention to him.
What I just really don't get is: If there is "no clue to deceit that is reliable for all human beings" (p. 97), then what is the point of any of this science? How well does it work? Can we get some quantitative idea of the value of this? Chance (i.e., the flip of a coin) is 50%. So, is a detection rate of 60% really all that much to crow about?
"Lies in Public Life" was about 25 pages long-- even though that could have been much of the whole book and an abundance of case studies. It's interesting that he made an evaluation of who could have been telling the truth in the Hill/ Thomas scandal on the strength of nothing other than their testimony (when he mentioned John Dean as an example-- p. 95-- and stated that "No clue to deceit is reliable for all human beings"-- p. 97). It's also interesting that Ekman passes over tons of cases where public figures *really were* known to lie (Clinton/ Lewinsky. OJ Simpson.)--and the book *was* updated in 2009.
"New Findings and Ideas about Lies and Lie Catching" is where the author gets into a series of experiments (and this is not written as a practical guide to someone that might want to catch someone else in a lie). Ekman waffles *on and on* about how "Experiment X did not successfully show thing Y and may have been because of limitation Z." The real icing on the cake was on p. 346 when he wrote that "I don't believe that accuracy rates will reach 100%, and it is for this reason that I don't believe that judgments about who is lying should be allowable evidence in court" thereby tearing down most all of what he spent the last few hundred pages building up (i.e. a practical, reliable, workable method for telling who is lying and who is not).
This book could have been *much* better with many more example of lies that a person encounters in real life and then principles to illustrate them after the fact (rather than the way that it was done, with lots of general statements and then a few examples after the fact).
At first I thought that it was worth the second hand purchase price (just barely), but on a reevalution, I have decided that it is not worth even that-- nor the time that it took to read it. I'd initially thought also that the book
Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception
, by Pamela Meyer was not all that great. But compared to this, that text is masterful.
I haven't finished reading it yet, but I'm almost 200 pages in and find myself skipping ahead, wondering if I'm going to get to a good part soon. The author spends too much time reviewing, restating, giving too many examples, and generally beating a point to death. I was hoping for something synthesized down to useful tips. I don't have a slow motion camera for evaluating someone's every eyebrow twitch or half smile. This is a good book for someone interested in the nuanced science of lie catchers, but it isn't what I was hoping for.
This book should be re-written. The first ten chapters focus on old research, while helpful, appear to be slightly outdated. If you start with chapter ten and skim the first nine chapters you could get about 70% of the content. I have read at least five books on this topic and this one, while intellectually interesting, was not as helpful in giving me tools to detect deception. Even the examples are generalizations. Other books give you transcripts of testimony and show you exactly where the deception appears. Here, talking about literary characters doesn't quite work for me to be able to identify with the lesson the author seeks to teach. Show me o.j., Scott Peterson, presidential interviews, lance Armstrong, or actual examples and I would feel better.
On the other hand, if the author gave a hands on seminar -- I would go in an instant.