From media reports his entire background was a sham that would have been apparent had a proper due diligence process existed in the Tory party.

Dr. Robert Hare claims there are 300,000 psychopaths in Canada, but that only a tiny fraction are violent offenders like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen. Who are the rest? Take a look around

This is an excellent article recounting Dr. Hare’s ground-braking work that now makes it easier to recognise psychopaths.

This 1921 book represents a system of stereotyping people. This book, no doubt, sold to people striving to simplify their understanding others to nurture their biases. I’m sure this is as reliable as Phrenology and terrorist profiling.  (This is also a fine example of what one can find on the Internet if you have too much time on your hands.)

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Executives who paint a rosier picture than the numbers suggest speak differently, new research suggests
WALLACE IMMEN

If you hear your boss use the phrase “what an incredible year the company has had,” when reporting the latest results, it might be time to dust off your résumé, a new study suggests.

Using inflated language and third-person phrases such as “the team” and “the company” rather than “I” and “we” can be cues that an executive is lying or covering up a bad situation, according to research by David Larcker, director of the corporate governance research program at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, and doctoral student Anastasia Zakolyukina.

They published their findings in a paper called “Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls”.

Deceptive bosses tend to make more references to general knowledge and refer less to shareholder value. They also use fewer “non-extreme positive emotion words”. Instead of describing something as “good”, they call it “fantastic”. The aim is to “sound more persuasive” while lying.

First, the case of Shirley Sherrod, the black U.S. Department of Agriculture official accused of racism. The evidence of her racism was a short, edited video clip offered up by a partisan web gadfly, Andrew Breitbart, who has a small empire of web sites. This guy knew such a controversial and inflammatory out-take would drive millions to his web sites. This huge burst of site traffic is money in Brietbart’s pocket.

What surprised me was that the NAACP and the Obama administration swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. They didn’t review the full video, interview people present at the event, or evaluate Breitbart’s motives for publishing the edited video.

Second, the leaked military documents that now appear on the WikiLeaks site need closer examination.

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is what a judge would describe as an unreliable witness. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking in Australia; and according to the National Post, “Before he set up the website in 2006, Julian Assange spent years hacking into government and company computers, including those of the U.S. Department of Defense, as part of a group calling themselves the International Subversives.”

With Assange’s talk about “war crimes” and his background, it isn’t hard to understand that this guy has an agenda. How his agenda distorts the picture of events depends upon what documents he publishes from this large volume of previously classified material.  We will never know what he didn’t publish and this creates a very similar situation to the selectively edited video clip published by Breitbart.

How to Prevent Crime BEFORE it Happens
Written by Damian Ross

Crime is never unpredictable. Before a lie is spoken, a pocket is picked, or an assault is inflicted, each and every criminal gives off silent cues. They can be as subtle as a shrug of the shoulder, a pointed finger, or an averted gaze. But together, they make up a nonverbal language that speaks loud and clear if you’re trained to see it…

The top 3 lies  that candidates tell HR are as follows:

1. Covering up employment gaps
2. Fake references
3. Phony responsibilities

Learn How To Catch These Lies

In several studies, Dr. Colwell and Dr. Hiscock-Anisman have reported one consistent difference: People telling the truth tend to add 20 to 30 percent more external detail than do those who are lying. “This is how memory works, by association,” Dr. Hiscock-Anisman said. “If you’re telling the truth, this mental reinstatement of contexts triggers more and more external details.”

Not so if you’ve got a concocted story and you’re sticking to it. “It’s the difference between a tree in full flower in the summer and a barren stick in winter,” said Dr. Charles Morgan, a psychiatrist at the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, who has tested it for trauma claims and among special-operations soldiers…

This approach, as promising as it is, has limitations. It applies only to a person talking about what happened during a specific time — not to individual facts, like, “Did you see a red suitcase on the floor?” It may be poorly suited, too, for someone who has been traumatized and is not interested in talking, Dr. Morgan said. And it is not likely to flag the person who changes one small but crucial detail in a story — “Sure, I was there, I threw some punches, but I know nothing about no knife” — or, for that matter, the expert or pathological liar.

BYOD: How to Detect Deception, Part I

BYOD: How to Detect Deception, Part II