Telling Lies by Paul Ekman: A Critical Book Review

Introduction: Ekman's Research and Core Argument

Paul Ekman is a Professor of Psychology whose book Telling Lies distills fifteen years of scientific study of nonverbal communication and the clues to deception. A pioneer in emotions research and nonverbal communication, Ekman's work could be most succinctly subtitled: "Lies succeed because no one goes through the work to figure out how to catch them." His detailed research delves into the question of how a person goes about detecting lies. Building on the subject of body language and the reality that a person's body will give clues to what is really going on inside their mind regardless of what is coming out of their mouth, Dr. Ekman goes beyond the standard inventory of nonverbal clues and examines micro-gestures and micro-expressions. These, he argues, are fleeting communications often only distinguishable in the slow-motion replay of an event, much like an NFL referee reviewing a disputed play.

Summary of Telling Lies

This book is accurate, intelligent, informative, and thoughtful. Its tone and style, though slightly dry in the way many books arising from academic research tend to be, is accessible to both the layperson and the scientist. Ekman is not insensitive to the political and social implications of making the information in this book available to the public. In his view, it is better that people act on fact rather than hunches and intuition. He suggests that his book should help lie-catchers more than liars, since a manual for liars would not make sense — natural liars do not need a manual, and the rest of us lack the talent to benefit from one.

Ekman could have been more speculative and suggested coherent patterns as indicators of lying, but his caution is admirable given the complexity of detecting deception. In essence, this is a handbook based on his extensive research into our apparently near-universal inability to detect lying through observation. In test situations — and, it seems, in many real-life situations — most people score little better than chance. The only groups he found who consistently score high at lie-detecting are small minorities among those whose specialty it is. He makes the alarming claim that in the existing training materials he examined, "About half the information … is wrong" (p. 22).

Although large quantities of material on body language are presented throughout the book, the author avoids that expression, preferring the term "demeanor." Topics dealt with explicitly include "Lying, Leakage, and Clues to Deceit" (ch. 2), "Why Lies Fail" (ch. 3), the effectiveness of polygraph tests (ch. 7), "Lie Catching in the 1990s" (ch. 9), and an extremely important chapter, "Lies in Public Life" (ch. 10). The latter deals more with high affairs of state than with public life in general and is probably the most interesting and important part of the book. Of the final chapter, Ekman writes: "This … contains new theoretical distinctions, a brief summary of new findings, and a set of explanations for why it is that most people, even professionals, are such poor lie catchers" (p. 7).

The index directs readers to the key concept of lying, defined on pages 26–27, but the material there turns out to be a diffuse essay. It is not until near the end of the book that a concise definition is offered:

Telling a lie is an activity through which one person deliberately, by choice, misleads another person without any notification that deception will occur. It does not matter whether the lie is accomplished by saying something false or by omitting crucial information. Those are just differences in technique, for the effect is the same. (pp. 313–14)

The text is filled with specialist terminology that initially reads as jargon. However, as one continues reading, virtually all the described patterns of behavior are recognizable — merely framed differently from how a lay reader might ordinarily describe them. One such example is the "Pinocchio" problem, centered on the extending-nose indicator: "People would lie less if they thought there was any such sign of lying, but there isn't" (p. 80).