Maybe you’ve heard that you can get clues about whether someone is lying by what direction they look when they talk. The most common form of this idea is that if someone is looking up and to their left, they’re more likely to be accessing real visual memories (associated with truth), and if they’re looking up and to their right, they’re more likely to be constructing visual images (associated with lies). But there is no basis for this; in fact, many studies have found evidence against that claim. This idea and other more broad ideas about eye movement clues were popularized by NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), a school of thought whose core ideas have been debunked time and time again. In this episode, I talk to Tim Levine, a respected deception detection researcher. We talk about: the eye direction idea; the huge amount of bullshit in the pop behavior analysis space (e.g., shows like the Behavior Panel); reasons why the spreaders of this bullshit are so popular and successful; what the science says about using behavior to detect deception; why it’s so difficult to use behavior to detect deception; the idea that you need to establish “baselines” for people to aid you in reading them; how behavioral patterns in games/sports can differ from more real-world non-game scenarios; confirmation bias in the behavior analysis space, and how even smart researchers can be unreasonably biased in favor of their own ideas; Paul Ekman’s work; and more.

Many Americans think Trump is harming democracy; they see him as acting undemocratically in various ways. At the same time, Republicans and Trump supporters can view Democrats/liberals as themselves acting in highly undemocratic ways: as embracing various beliefs and actions that violate the spirit of democracy. I talk to Elizabeth Doll, who has worked in the political depolarization/bridge-building space for several years; she is currently the Director of Braver Politics for the organization Braver Angels. She is also someone who has been frustrated with various stances of liberal “defenders of democracy” that she sees as undemocratic and hypocritical. Topics discussed include: why anti-Trump people should want to understand these criticisms; various Republican-side views that liberals have behaved “undemocratically,” the debate over the electoral college; the debate over adding Supreme Court justices (stacking the court); the ambiguity in the word “democracy” and how that ambiguity leads to many things being called “undemocratic,"; why trying to understand each others' concerns is important for reducing toxicity, and more.

A talk about hypnosis and mind control with Martin S. Taylor, a well known British hypnotist (hypnotism.co.uk). Martin is known for his stage hypnosis act but also for educating people about hypnosis and removing the illusions and mystique surrounding it. There are some people who make astounding claims that they can control and manipulate people using hypnosis. Some even claim they can get people to do things against their will and their ethics. Some of these people claim they can do this quickly, within minutes, and that they can teach you to do the same. There are clearly some impressive things you can do with hypnosis (as Martin will attest) — but there are also clearly many unethical and deceptive people in the NLP/hypnosis/influence space who exaggerate what you can do with it. In this talk, Martin and I try to separate fact from fiction — reality from bullshit. Topics discussed include: How did Martin get into hypnosis? What’s going on in a stage hypnosis act? What psychological factors lead to people acting in unusual and extreme ways in those settings? Is there such a thing as a hypnotic “trance”? Is it a special state? Martin’s thoughts on hypnosis used for therapy and self-help. MK Ultra and other government programs related to mind control and brainwashing. The importance of being skeptical about grand claims about hypnosis and mind control.

In March of 2024, the newsman and sports commentator Keith Olbermann tweeted that the “Supreme Court had betrayed democracy” and called for it to be “dissolved.” This was the second time he’d called for the Supreme Court to be dissolved: he did that also in 2022. This is a review of some of Olbermann’s more unreasonable and incendiary behavior over the last twenty years, with a focus on his political rage and how that relates to America’s toxic polarization problem. Because clearly there are many people around us, like Olbermann, with extreme contempt toward their political opponents, and a lot of biased, unreasonably certain takes about all sorts of events and happenings. What might we learn from Olbermann's behavior?

I talk to Jess Snitko, who has researched online dating and other online communication, about the signals and messages we send, intentionally and unintentionally, with dating app profiles and pictures. Topics discussed: Factors in pictures and profiles that cause people to swipe right or swipe left; the so-called “duck-face” expression some girls make in photos; men’s shirtless photos; men who post pictures of holding a fish or posing with dead animals; bathroom mirror selfies; pictures of partying and drinking; group photos and problems with those; cropped photos where an ex is being removed from the picture; how first impressions can be prone to errors; and more.

Is the idea of a left-right political spectrum an illusion? Is there actually no consistent idea of “left” and no consistent idea of “right”? My guest is Hyrum Lewis, co-author of "The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America." They argue that we’ve embraced a simplistic, faulty idea of an essential “left/liberalism” and an essential “right/conservatism.” And that, similar to embracing a faulty medical idea (like the old theory of the four humors), embracing a faulty political theory has hurt us in major ways. For one thing, it creates a perception that instead of there being many different issues, there is just a single issue (left versus right) and that choosing the right “team” gains you access to all the right ideas. Embracing that concept in turn amplifies conflict and anger, by making our divides seem like a war between two set and essential ideologies. It makes it easier to embrace a good-versus-bad way of seeing our political divides. Topics include: why Hyrum believes the left-right spectrum is an illusion; common objections to their idea; how persuasive political thinkers have found their idea; the ways in which language and foundational concepts can amplify divides; the horseshoe theory; ways we might speak and write in better ways about our political disagreements, and more.

Every time I go in Trader Joe's, the checkout person asks me a question of some sort. I used to think everyone there was just happy and friendly, but then I heard reports that it was more of a rule or strong encouragement that employees talk to customers. I read conflicting reports about this online and wanted to talk to someone who'd worked at Trader Joe's, to see if she could shed some light on this. I talk to Twiggy, who has a YouTube channel (youtube.com/@TwiggysDollHospital) and who makes custom dolls (twiggysdollhospital.com).

The fraud Chase Hughes, whose major lies and unethical behaviors I’ve examined in past episodes, continues to succeed in getting popular podcasts with large audiences to interview him. Chase recently appeared on the podcast The Diary of a CEO with host Steven Bartlett; he also appeared on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast (PBD podcast). He's also been on Dr. Phil's show, and on Leon Hendrix's podcast DRVN. I examine some clips from Chase's appearances on a couple of these podcasts, as a public service announcement to the millions of people who may have recently learned about Chase and become fans. I recap some of the absurd claims Chase has made. I talk about why I think these podcasts keep interviewing him, and what it tells us about the internet information ecosystem. I examine an early podcast interview where the host told me for Chase's bio he just wrote what Chase said and didn’t vet it, which is what many of these podcasts have done. More podcast appearances; more seeming legitimacy. For the first episode of mine about Chase’s many lies, search online for “Chase Hughes lies” and you’ll probably see it near top of search results.

In June of 2024, I got an op-ed published in TheHill.com about Elon Musk's polarization -- specifically his affective polarization, which refers to how people perceive and treat their political opponents. Like many in our highly polarized, righteously angry society across the polical spectrum, Elon Musk treats the "other side" with much contempt and disdain. You can often find him insulting and demeaning people on his social media platform, as well as claiming to know with high certainty the hidden, malicious motives in his opponents' minds. In this episode, I read my op-ed and add some additional observations. Topics discussed include: How high-contempt approaches help create pushback from opponents and in that way are self-defeating; The importance of distinguishing 'what we believe' from 'how we engage'; How conflict influences more and more people, on both "sides," to behave in high-contempt ways; How we might criticize "our side" in order to encourage better ways of engaging.

Brian Dunning, creator of the podcast Skeptoid, made a documentary that brings a skeptical, analytical eye to the recent UFO craze – including those three famous UFO videos released by the Pentagon that got a whole lot of attention in a 2017 New York Times article. His documentary has the tongue-in-cheek title “The UFO Movie They Don’t Want You To See” and you can find it at www.briandunning.com/ufo. I think more people need to see Brian’s movie; it explained a lot and now I feel like I finally understand those videos. It’s been surprising how little attention the more rational, analytical explanations for those videos have gotten. If you’re someone who’s seen those videos and thought “What the hell is going on?” I think you’ll want to watch Brian’s movie. In this short episode I focus on one specific explanation for one of the videos in question. (I recommend watching my YouTube video version of this episode.)

I thought it'd be interesting to read a very dumb book from 1969 called "Face Reading: A Guide to How the Human Face Reveals Personality, Sexuality, Intelligence, Character, and More." It's about finding meaning in people's physical facial characteristics; not about reading emotions or expressions. To be clear: this is a very bad book with no sense/logic to it, basically astrology-like, and I'm reading it because I was curious what it said and thought some other people would find it interesting. I'm generally curious about the weird things people believe; also curious about some stereotypes that were present about facial characteristics in the 60s era. I thought it was an interesting relic and some other people might also think so.

I interrogate an 8-year-old about her belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and other magical creatures.

A piece I wrote for my Defusing American Anger Substack (learn more at www.american-anger.com). It’s my attempt to persuade Americans why they should see it as vitally important to work on reducing political toxicity, even as they may have various fears and grievances and anger about their political opponents. If you have skepticism about the ideas in this piece, I would ask you if you'd be willing to read my ebook on this topic, Defusing American Anger. If you want a free copy, email me via my american-anger.com website and I'll send you one. This is an extremely serious problem and I think to help solve it we need more people to consider ideas that may, at first, make them uncomfortable.

In a recent Fox News interview, Trump was asked whether he thought there would be chaos and violence if he won the election, and his response included mentioning that, if necessary, the National Guard or other military might be needed. Many framed this response as indicating that Trump would go after his political opponents and those who opposed him using the military, leaving out the context that the question asked was about election-related violence. I discuss what this incident can teach us about our toxic political divides. Topics discussed include: Republican-side grievances and how incidents like this relate; how conflict leads us to filter things in more pessimistic and negative ways; the self-reinforcing nature of toxic political polarization; the importance of trying to understand your opponents’ narratives; how understanding doesn’t require agreeing; Trump’s “bloodbath” language and similar highly negative reactions to that; the ease with which we can be biased without even realizing it, and more. Learn more about my polarization work at american-anger.com.

In the documentary Money Electric, filmmaker Cullen Hoback put forth the theory that developer Peter Todd was Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious creator of Bitcoin. In this episode, I talk to cryptocurrency expert Jeremy Clark (pulpspy.com) about this theory, with a focus on the language and behavior of Peter Todd. We discuss: the 2010 forum post by Peter Todd that forms the backbone of Hoback’s theory; Peter’s behavior in the film when confronted, which many people saw as suspicious and strange; the difficulties of relying on nonverbal behavior for clues; and how simple, neat, and exciting stories can attract us.

On the Nextdoor app, a fake account succeeded in getting some personal info from me before I realized they were a scammer. I discuss how that scam went down, share an audio call I had with the scammer, and give some tips for spotting online scammer behaviors and traits. These tips are focused on online marketplace scams but should be applicable for a lot of online scammers in general. 

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality test is used by many organizations and consultants, but it's been criticized by many as pseudo-science that's unhelpful, and even harmful. I talk to Randy Stein, who has researched the Myers Briggs and personality tests in general. Topics discussed include: the reasons people object to the Myers Briggs test; the downsides of personality tests that group people into boxes (as opposed to using a spectrum-like approach); the Forer effect, where people often believe that vague descriptions apply to them; the downsides of labeling ourselves and others; how the complexity of a question can wrongly seem like deepness; how Myers-Briggs relates to the more scientifically respected "Big Five" personality traits. We also talk about Randy's research on political polarization, showing how we can be drawn to being the opposite of a disliked group.

This episode includes part of a poker tells webinar that I, Zach Elwood, did with Terry Wood, owner of PokerRailbird.com. I'm the author of three respected books on poker tells, including Exploiting Poker Tells and Verbal Poker Tells. My first book, Reading Poker Tells, has been translated into eight languages. You can learn more about my poker tells work at readingpokertells.com. Topics discussed: two important categories of poker tells; some specific examples of poker tells (including eye contact tells and how people move their eyes after betting); how tells vary when you go from lower stakes to higher stakes, and more.

This is my third episode about Chase Hughes, the self-titled “#1 expert in behavior and influence.” My first episode about him examined his early deceptions and exaggerations, and his involvement in pick-up artistry and vitamin supplement sales. In this one, I talk about how Chase’s work relates to Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and NLP-related hypnosis. Long story short: Chase has used the NLP trainer template but repackaged it with a military/secret-agent/MK-Ultra-type spin. I examine the connections between NLP and Chase’s content. I also attempt to explain why Chase (and people like him) can acquire good reviews and fans, despite so much of it being obviously silly and also expensive. I also examine Chase’s recent promoting of supplements sold by a chiropractor. And I talk about the various people who've promoted Chase, from influential podcasters to Dr. Phil to his fellow Behavior Panel members, and why there seems to be such a lack of interest in these people examining his background and claims. A later episode will focus specifically on behavior analysis and the Behavior Panel. This episode is focused squarely on NLP/hypnosis. Topics discussed in this video include: how Chase’s concepts relate to NLP; what NLP is and why people attend those seminars; my own personal experiences working for an NLP trainer; how NLP seminars relate to other experiential/transformational multi-day seminars; good/neutral aspects of NLP/hypnosis/influence type content and training; the many influential people who’ve promoted Chase; why these things can impress people despite being so obviously silly and strange; what a hypnosis expert had to say about Chase's stuff; why behavior-analysis and influence/hypnosis-type offerings lend themselves to exaggerated claims; and more.

Many surveys and headlines have claimed there's a large percentage of Americans who support political violence. Some estimates have been around 25% – and some have gone as high as 40%! This is very scary; it ramps up fears of a violent and chaotic American future, and even fears of a civil war. But political polarization researchers like my guest Sean Westwood have shown that many people are massively overstating the problem. And that overstatement is leading to hysterical and unhelpful framings and debates. Worst of all, these exaggerated fears can even contribute to a self-reinforcing cycle… a self-fulfilling prophecy. Topics discussed include: what the faulty surveys and studies are missing; how bad survey design (ambiguous questions, or leading questions) can lead to faulty estimates; what more accurate survey results tell us; how exaggerated fears can contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy; and why people embrace and promote overly pessimistic narratives.