Santosh Rathod

Introduction to Detecting Lies:

The following techniques to telling if someone is lying are often used by police, and

security experts. This knowledge is also useful for managers, employers, and for anyone to use in everyday situations where telling the truth from a lie can help prevent you from being a victim of fraud/scams and other deceptions.

Warning: Sometimes Ignorance is bliss; after gaining this knowledge, you may be hurt when it is obvious that someone is lying to you.

Signs of Deception:

Body Language of Lies:

• Physical expression will be limited and stiff, with few arm and hand movements. Hand, arm and

leg movement are toward their own body the liar takes up less space.

• A person who is lying to you will avoid making eye contact.

• Hands touching their face, throat &

mouth. Touching or scratching the nose or behind their ear. Not likely to touch his chest/heart with an open hand.

Emotional Gestures & Contradiction

• Timing and duration of emotional gestures and emotions are off a normal pace. The display of emotion is delayed, stays longer it would naturally, then stops suddenly.

• Timing is off between emotions gestures/expression s and words. Example: Someone says “I

love it!” when receiving a gift, and then smile after making that statement, rather then at the same time the statement is made.

• Gestures/expression s don’t match the verbal statement, such as frowning when saying “I love you.”

• Expressions are limited to mouth movements when someone is faking emotions (like happy, surprised, sad, awe, )instead of the whole face. For example; when someone smiles naturally their whole face is involved: jaw/cheek movement, eyes and forehead push down, etc.

Interactions and Reactions

• A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive.

• A liar is uncomfortable facing his questioner/accuser and may turn his head or body away.

• A liar might unconsciously place objects (book, coffee cup, etc.) between themselves and you.

Verbal Context and Content

• A liar will use your words to make answer a question. When asked, “Did you eat the last cookie?” The liar answers, “No, I did not eat the last cookie.”

•A statement with a contraction is more likely to be truthful: ” I didn’t do it” instead of “I did not do it”

• Liars sometimes avoid “lying” by not making direct statements. They imply answers instead of denying something directly.

• The guilty person may speak more than natural, adding unnecessary details to convince you…. they are not comfortable with silence or pauses in the conversation.

• A liar may leave out pronouns and speak in a monotonous tone. When a truthful statement is made the pronoun is emphasized as much or more than the rest of the words in a statement.

• Words may be garbled and spoken softly, and syntax and grammar may be off. In other

words, his sentences will likely be muddled rather than emphasized

Other signs of a lie:

• If you believe someone is lying, then change subject of a conversation quickly, a liar follows along willingly and becomes more relaxed. The guilty wants the subject changed; an innocent person may be confused by the sudden change in topics and will want to back to the previous subject.

• Using humor or sarcasm to avoid a subject.

Final Notes:

Obviously, just because someone exhibits one or more of these signs does not make them a liar. The above behaviors should be compared to a persons base (normal) behavior whenever possible

Hahnemann’s day, the conventional theory of disease was based on the four humours. Mainstream medicine focused on restoring the balance in the humours, either by attempting to remove an excess (by such methods as bloodletting and purging, laxatives, enemas and nauseous substances that made patients vomit) or by suppressing symptoms, such as by lowering the body temperature of patients who were feverish. By contrast, Hahnemann promoted an immaterial, vitalistic view of disease: “…homeopathy…can easily convince…that the diseases of man are not caused by any substance, any acridity…any disease matter, but that they are solely spirit-like (dynamic) derangements of the spirit-like power (the vital principle) that animates the human body.”

Vitalism was a part of mainstream science in the 18th century. In the twentieth century, medicine discarded vitalism in favour of the germ theory of disease, following the work of Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Joseph Lister and many others. Modern medicine sees bacteria and viruses as the causes of many diseases, but Kent and some modern homeopaths regard them as effects, not causes, of disease. Others have adapted to the views of modern medicine by referring to disturbances in, and stimulation of, the immune system, rather than the vital force.

As previously stated, homeopathy stemmed in part from the idea of medical similars, the idea that ‘like cures like’ while Hahnemann was translating into German the Materia Medica (1789) of William Cullen, the so-called Scottish Hippocrates. On reading that Cinchona bark (which contains quinine) was effective because it was bitter, Hahnemann felt this implausible because other substances were as bitter but had no therapeutic value. To understand the effects of Cinchona bark, he decided to take it himself, and saw that his reactions were similar to the symptoms of the disease it was used to treat. At least one writer has suggested that Hahnemann was hypersensitive to quinine, and that he may have had an allergic reaction.

Yet, this proving experiment by Hahnemann was by no means unique, as others before him had tried the same approach, such as, for example, Anton von Störck (1731-1803), “in the 1760’s, who advocated treatment by cautious use of poisons.” Indeed, Hahnemann had studied briefly in Vienna (1777) where Störck eventually became head of the University. The proving idea had also been recommended by the great Swiss medical botanist, Albrecht von Haller, (1708-77), who Hahnemann admired, and whose Materia Medica he translated in 1806. It might be said the proving experiment came to Hahnemann from several previous sources.

For Hahnemann, the whole body and spirit was the focus of therapy, not just localised disease. Hahnemann spent a lot of time with his patients, asking them not only about their symptoms or illness, but also about their daily lives. This gentle approach contrasted with the violent forms of heroic medicine common at the time, which included techniques such as bleeding as a matter of course.

Nearly as important as Hahnemann to the development of homeopathy was James Tyler Kent (1849 – 1921). Kent’s influence in the USA was limited, but in the UK, his ideas became the homeopathic orthodoxy by the end of the First World War. His most important contribution may be his repertory, which is still used today. Kent’s attempt to rescue an idealized pure homeopathy from what he saw as its degenerate mongrel forms was authoritarian, as he sought to re-emphasize the metaphysical and clinical aspects of Hahnemann’s teachings, in particular:

insistence on the core doctrines of miasm and vital force;
emphasis on case totality rather than rote prescribing for ‘named diseases’
emphasis on psychological symptoms (to supplement physical pathology) in prescribing; and regular use of very high potencies.
Influenced by Swedenborgianism, Kent reputedly emphasized ’spiritual factors’ as the root cause of disease.

“…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness… which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases.”