Hi! Julie O’Hara here, subbing for Lee Hanson. She has me ‘on hold’ while she cares for “the love of her life”… a fond alias for her husband who isn’t well.
I’ve tried mightily, my friends, to stay on the sidelines, but I’m a body language expert, and there’s so much LYING going on lately in Lee Hanson’s world! I mean, everybody lies, but this is an unusually important situation that can impact Lee and everyone in her world. There are two political candidates that she’s trying to assess, so I thought I’d give her (and you) some helpful tips.
First, I have to say that these two candidates are so extreme that they belong in my fictional world more than Lee Hanson’s real world! They have something that all fictional characters need, whether they’re heroes or heavies… flaws.
And, my, oh, my… do these two have flaws.
But I’m not here to discuss all that. That’s Lee’s specialty. I only inform her about who’s lying, who isn’t and why. Sometimes, she gets so caught up in the story that it’s hard for her to see what’s right in front of her. And that’s human nature because of these factors:
Okay, so let’s examine these two candidates. As I said before, everybody lies and some people are really good at it, so we need a ‘baseline’ for each of them. The first way to tell if someone is lying is when they deviate from their normal reaction. We have behavior history on both of these people, so let’s look at anger:
We know that the woman, in private, has a temper. Books and articles written by those closest to her, recount her using the expletive “f**k” quite often and throwing things: a lamp at her husband, a Bible in her limousine. Yet, in a debate, her anger is hidden in a steely stare, a fixed smile and frozen posture. This is pure deception, incongruent with her true feelings.
We know that the man has a bombastic nature and a “thin skin”. When accused of alleged sexual misbehavior, his anger is obvious, defensive and immediate. This is a genuine reaction for anyone who is falsely accused. A guilty person knows exactly what they’ve done. They stay calm and have practiced lies at the ready. This man’s vehement denial is reflexive. He’s telling the truth.
In addition, we have further congruent behavior on this subject. This man was caught on a hot mic, an older man on a bus, crudely bragging to a younger man about taking sexual liberties with attractive women.
(I say “bragging,” because it’s classic behavior. Some older men will challenge a younger man to a race to prove their prowess, or make bets on seducing a woman at a bar. Another clue is the way the older man ultimately greeted a beautiful woman as they exited the bus. He didn’t “immediately grab her and kiss her,” as he bragged on the bus. Instead, he politely shook her hand. The younger man then goaded the woman to give the older man “a hug for coming all this way.” The older man chastely and awkwardly returned the woman’s hug, and immediately mentioned his wife by name, saying, “I guess she won’t mind a hug.”)
At the debate, this male candidate apologized about the decade-old recording. He was “embarrassed by his crude comments.” He unconsciously hung his head, not wanting to look at anyone as he said this, showing acute humiliation and embarrassment. When asked if he actually took unwanted liberties with women, his demeanor changed and he angrily denied it. Complete congruence. In my considered opinion, this man was telling the truth. He is a seducer, not an abuser.
The female candidate, in contrast to her male opponent, is a practiced politician, which is to say, a practiced liar. Her opponent, frankly, is a terrible liar. I don’t doubt that he is a good negotiator, experienced and surrounded by attorneys. But, alone, he would lose at poker. And that IS funny, since he took his greatest financial loss with casinos!
There is so much more I could go into on the female candidate, but I’ll leave that up to Lee (and you) to figure out. With so much information uncovered about that candidate's mishandling of classified material, involvement in rigging her own primary race, an alleged ‘pay-for-play’ connection between her top position in the State Department and her family foundation… well, it’s easy to see that lies connected to possible personal corruption fall into the ‘self-protective’ variety.
As a body language expert, it’s easy for me to spot who is the shrouded villain and who is the unlikely hero in this political drama. What I’m anxious to find out is this: Is Lee Hanson’s real world about to become ever more depressed, divided and dangerous? Or will it head in a new, more hopeful, prosperous and safe direction?
(Just between us, I don’t think Lee knows, either.)
Julie
I’ve tried mightily, my friends, to stay on the sidelines, but I’m a body language expert, and there’s so much LYING going on lately in Lee Hanson’s world! I mean, everybody lies, but this is an unusually important situation that can impact Lee and everyone in her world. There are two political candidates that she’s trying to assess, so I thought I’d give her (and you) some helpful tips.
First, I have to say that these two candidates are so extreme that they belong in my fictional world more than Lee Hanson’s real world! They have something that all fictional characters need, whether they’re heroes or heavies… flaws.
And, my, oh, my… do these two have flaws.
But I’m not here to discuss all that. That’s Lee’s specialty. I only inform her about who’s lying, who isn’t and why. Sometimes, she gets so caught up in the story that it’s hard for her to see what’s right in front of her. And that’s human nature because of these factors:
- Sometimes, we don’t want to know the truth. In this case, one of the candidates is a woman. Lee would love to have a woman president and has admired this woman in the past, so that takes away some of her usual objectivity toward that candidate.
- There’s a lot of misdirection going on, so everyone, including Lee (who should know better), is looking at ‘shiny objects’ (salacious sex allegations, aimed both ways) instead of true deception in the candidates themselves.
- Some people are prone to exaggeration lies and outright lies, through sheer personality or practice. For the male candidate, exaggeration is a personality trait. In the female candidate, it’s both.
Okay, so let’s examine these two candidates. As I said before, everybody lies and some people are really good at it, so we need a ‘baseline’ for each of them. The first way to tell if someone is lying is when they deviate from their normal reaction. We have behavior history on both of these people, so let’s look at anger:
We know that the woman, in private, has a temper. Books and articles written by those closest to her, recount her using the expletive “f**k” quite often and throwing things: a lamp at her husband, a Bible in her limousine. Yet, in a debate, her anger is hidden in a steely stare, a fixed smile and frozen posture. This is pure deception, incongruent with her true feelings.
We know that the man has a bombastic nature and a “thin skin”. When accused of alleged sexual misbehavior, his anger is obvious, defensive and immediate. This is a genuine reaction for anyone who is falsely accused. A guilty person knows exactly what they’ve done. They stay calm and have practiced lies at the ready. This man’s vehement denial is reflexive. He’s telling the truth.
In addition, we have further congruent behavior on this subject. This man was caught on a hot mic, an older man on a bus, crudely bragging to a younger man about taking sexual liberties with attractive women.
(I say “bragging,” because it’s classic behavior. Some older men will challenge a younger man to a race to prove their prowess, or make bets on seducing a woman at a bar. Another clue is the way the older man ultimately greeted a beautiful woman as they exited the bus. He didn’t “immediately grab her and kiss her,” as he bragged on the bus. Instead, he politely shook her hand. The younger man then goaded the woman to give the older man “a hug for coming all this way.” The older man chastely and awkwardly returned the woman’s hug, and immediately mentioned his wife by name, saying, “I guess she won’t mind a hug.”)
At the debate, this male candidate apologized about the decade-old recording. He was “embarrassed by his crude comments.” He unconsciously hung his head, not wanting to look at anyone as he said this, showing acute humiliation and embarrassment. When asked if he actually took unwanted liberties with women, his demeanor changed and he angrily denied it. Complete congruence. In my considered opinion, this man was telling the truth. He is a seducer, not an abuser.
The female candidate, in contrast to her male opponent, is a practiced politician, which is to say, a practiced liar. Her opponent, frankly, is a terrible liar. I don’t doubt that he is a good negotiator, experienced and surrounded by attorneys. But, alone, he would lose at poker. And that IS funny, since he took his greatest financial loss with casinos!
There is so much more I could go into on the female candidate, but I’ll leave that up to Lee (and you) to figure out. With so much information uncovered about that candidate's mishandling of classified material, involvement in rigging her own primary race, an alleged ‘pay-for-play’ connection between her top position in the State Department and her family foundation… well, it’s easy to see that lies connected to possible personal corruption fall into the ‘self-protective’ variety.
As a body language expert, it’s easy for me to spot who is the shrouded villain and who is the unlikely hero in this political drama. What I’m anxious to find out is this: Is Lee Hanson’s real world about to become ever more depressed, divided and dangerous? Or will it head in a new, more hopeful, prosperous and safe direction?
(Just between us, I don’t think Lee knows, either.)
Julie
RSS Feed