I’ve spent more than two decades sitting across from people in small rooms with bad coffee and uncomfortable chairs. Some were innocent. Some were not. Many were simply afraid. Over time, I learned something important: deception rarely announces itself with dramatic tells. It hides in everyday habits — the kind we all brush off as personality quirks.

In interrogation work, we don’t look for “liars.” We look for changes, inconsistencies, and patterns. The same skills that help in an interview room can help you in daily life — at work, in relationships, even in casual conversations.

Here are a few common conversation habits that often signal something deeper beneath the surface.

One of the oldest tricks in the book is answering around a question instead of answering it directly.

If I ask, “Were you at the office after 8 PM?” and the response is, “I always work late when deadlines are close,” that’s not an answer — it’s a deflection.

Why it matters:
Direct questions activate cognitive load. When someone is being deceptive or hiding something, answering precisely can feel risky. So they widen the frame. They generalize. They give background instead of specifics.

Psychologically, this is called strategic ambiguity. It allows a person to technically respond without committing to a verifiable fact.

What to look for:

• Overly broad answers to specific questions

• Repeated reframing of the topic

• Long explanations that never land on a clear yes or no

In everyday life, this doesn’t always mean guilt. It can signal discomfort, uncertainty, or fear of conflict. But it is almost always a signal that something in that area feels sensitive.

Truthful statements tend to be simple. Deceptive ones often come padded with extra language.

“I swear to God…”
“To be completely honest with you…”
“Honestly, I would never…”

Ironically, the more someone insists on their honesty, the more I pay attention.

Why it matters:
Research in statement analysis shows that truthful people assume credibility. They don’t feel the need to sell their sincerity. When someone repeatedly emphasizes honesty, it can reflect internal anxiety — a subconscious attempt to bolster believability.

It’s not the phrase itself that’s suspicious. It’s when the phrase appears where it isn’t necessary.

For example:

• Asked: “Did you finish the report?”

• Response: “Honestly, I worked really hard on it.”

Notice what’s missing: a clear confirmation.

Every person has a baseline — their normal rhythm, tone, and vocabulary. Deception often shows up as a deviation from that baseline.

A normally calm speaker may begin talking rapidly.
A confident executive may suddenly pause excessively.
Someone who uses contractions (“didn’t,” “wasn’t”) may switch to formal speech (“did not,” “was not”).

Why it matters:
Deception increases cognitive load. The brain is juggling the invented narrative, monitoring your reaction, and suppressing the truth. That multitasking creates friction — and friction leaks into speech.

One of the most reliable indicators isn’t a specific behavior — it’s change.

If someone always speaks formally, formal speech means nothing. But if their tone shifts dramatically during one topic, that topic deserves closer attention.

This one surprises people.

Many assume liars keep stories short. In reality, some do the opposite: they overwhelm you with detail.

“I left at exactly 7:42 PM, stopped at the Shell station on Pine Street — you know, the one with the broken sign — and then I bought a bottle of water, not the big one, the smaller 16-ounce one…”

Why it matters:
When fabricating a story, people often try to increase credibility by adding sensory details. The logic is simple: more detail equals more truth.

But natural memory doesn’t work like that. Genuine recollection tends to include meaningful details — not random filler. Excessive precision can sometimes indicate construction rather than recall.

The key distinction:

• Authentic memory feels organic and sometimes imperfect.

• Fabricated memory often feels rehearsed or mechanically precise.

When discussing a serious event, genuine emotional response typically aligns with the narrative. If someone describes a traumatic or shocking event with flat affect — or displays emotion at an odd moment — it can signal detachment.

This doesn’t mean they’re lying. Trauma, shock, and personality differences all influence emotional expression.

However, in deceptive contexts, mismatched emotion can indicate that the story is intellectual rather than experiential.

Why it matters:
Emotion and memory are neurologically linked. When a person recalls something they truly experienced, emotional circuits often activate alongside factual memory.

If the emotion appears staged or oddly timed, it may suggest the story is being performed rather than remembered.

When someone repeats your question verbatim before answering — “Did I take the money?” — it can serve two purposes:

1. Buying time to think

2. Softening the impact before responding

This is a classic stalling technique. It’s subtle and common.

In everyday settings, it may simply mean someone needs processing time. But when paired with other signals — avoidance, qualification, speech changes — it can strengthen a pattern.

In interrogation, we never rely on a single cue. We look for clusters.

Pay attention to words like:

• “Just”

• “Only”

• “Kind of”

• “Sort of”

• “Basically”

“I just borrowed it.”
“It was only for a minute.”
“It was basically nothing.”

Minimization language often signals that the speaker knows the action carries weight and is trying to reduce perceived severity.

Psychologically, this reflects internal conflict. The person recognizes potential judgment and attempts to shrink the event before you can evaluate it fully.

One of the more revealing patterns is denying something that hasn’t been accused.

“I didn’t steal anything.”
“I would never cheat.”
“I’m not hiding anything from you.”

When no direct accusation has been made, spontaneous denial can indicate that the topic is already active in the speaker’s mind.

This is known as anticipatory defense. The person is responding to an internal fear rather than your actual words.

Here’s the most important thing I’ve learned: no single behavior proves deception.

People fidget when nervous. They over-explain when anxious. They pause when tired. Context matters. Personality matters.

What matters most is:

• Changes from baseline

• Clusters of cues

• Sensitivity around specific topics

In daily life, your goal isn’t to interrogate friends or colleagues. It’s to listen more carefully. Notice patterns. Ask clear follow-up questions. Create space where honesty feels safer than performance.

Often, when people deflect or minimize, it’s not because they’re malicious — it’s because they’re afraid. Afraid of judgment. Afraid of consequences. Afraid of losing control.

And here’s the paradox: the more calmly and neutrally you respond, the more likely you are to see the truth surface.

1. Establish a baseline. Notice how someone normally communicates.

2. Watch for clusters, not isolated behaviors.

3. Pay attention to deflection and minimization.

4. Stay calm. Pressure increases deception; safety encourages disclosure.

5. Ask direct, simple follow-up questions — and allow silence to work for you.

After thousands of conversations across a metal table, I’ve come to respect one simple principle: people reveal more than they realize — not through grand gestures, but through the small habits they assume no one is watching.

Most people aren’t master deceivers.

They’re just human.

I’ve spent more than two decades sitting across from people in small rooms with bad coffee and uncomfortable chairs. Some were innocent. Some were not. Many were simply afraid. Over time, I learned something important: deception rarely announces itself with dramatic tells. It hides in everyday habits — the kind we all brush off as personality quirks.

In interrogation work, we don’t look for “liars.” We look for changes, inconsistencies, and patterns. The same skills that help in an interview room can help you in daily life — at work, in relationships, even in casual conversations.

Here are a few common conversation habits that often signal something deeper beneath the surface.

One of the oldest tricks in the book is answering around a question instead of answering it directly.

If I ask, “Were you at the office after 8 PM?” and the response is, “I always work late when deadlines are close,” that’s not an answer — it’s a deflection.

Why it matters:
Direct questions activate cognitive load. When someone is being deceptive or hiding something, answering precisely can feel risky. So they widen the frame. They generalize. They give background instead of specifics.

Psychologically, this is called strategic ambiguity. It allows a person to technically respond without committing to a verifiable fact.

What to look for:

• Overly broad answers to specific questions

• Repeated reframing of the topic

• Long explanations that never land on a clear yes or no

In everyday life, this doesn’t always mean guilt. It can signal discomfort, uncertainty, or fear of conflict. But it is almost always a signal that something in that area feels sensitive.

Truthful statements tend to be simple. Deceptive ones often come padded with extra language.

“I swear to God…”
“To be completely honest with you…”
“Honestly, I would never…”

Ironically, the more someone insists on their honesty, the more I pay attention.

Why it matters:
Research in statement analysis shows that truthful people assume credibility. They don’t feel the need to sell their sincerity. When someone repeatedly emphasizes honesty, it can reflect internal anxiety — a subconscious attempt to bolster believability.

It’s not the phrase itself that’s suspicious. It’s when the phrase appears where it isn’t necessary.

For example:

• Asked: “Did you finish the report?”

• Response: “Honestly, I worked really hard on it.”

Notice what’s missing: a clear confirmation.

Every person has a baseline — their normal rhythm, tone, and vocabulary. Deception often shows up as a deviation from that baseline.

A normally calm speaker may begin talking rapidly.
A confident executive may suddenly pause excessively.
Someone who uses contractions (“didn’t,” “wasn’t”) may switch to formal speech (“did not,” “was not”).

Why it matters:
Deception increases cognitive load. The brain is juggling the invented narrative, monitoring your reaction, and suppressing the truth. That multitasking creates friction — and friction leaks into speech.

One of the most reliable indicators isn’t a specific behavior — it’s change.

If someone always speaks formally, formal speech means nothing. But if their tone shifts dramatically during one topic, that topic deserves closer attention.

This one surprises people.

Many assume liars keep stories short. In reality, some do the opposite: they overwhelm you with detail.

“I left at exactly 7:42 PM, stopped at the Shell station on Pine Street — you know, the one with the broken sign — and then I bought a bottle of water, not the big one, the smaller 16-ounce one…”

Why it matters:
When fabricating a story, people often try to increase credibility by adding sensory details. The logic is simple: more detail equals more truth.

But natural memory doesn’t work like that. Genuine recollection tends to include meaningful details — not random filler. Excessive precision can sometimes indicate construction rather than recall.

The key distinction:

• Authentic memory feels organic and sometimes imperfect.

• Fabricated memory often feels rehearsed or mechanically precise.

When discussing a serious event, genuine emotional response typically aligns with the narrative. If someone describes a traumatic or shocking event with flat affect — or displays emotion at an odd moment — it can signal detachment.

This doesn’t mean they’re lying. Trauma, shock, and personality differences all influence emotional expression.

However, in deceptive contexts, mismatched emotion can indicate that the story is intellectual rather than experiential.

Why it matters:
Emotion and memory are neurologically linked. When a person recalls something they truly experienced, emotional circuits often activate alongside factual memory.

If the emotion appears staged or oddly timed, it may suggest the story is being performed rather than remembered.

When someone repeats your question verbatim before answering — “Did I take the money?” — it can serve two purposes:

1. Buying time to think

2. Softening the impact before responding

This is a classic stalling technique. It’s subtle and common.

In everyday settings, it may simply mean someone needs processing time. But when paired with other signals — avoidance, qualification, speech changes — it can strengthen a pattern.

In interrogation, we never rely on a single cue. We look for clusters.

Pay attention to words like:

• “Just”

• “Only”

• “Kind of”

• “Sort of”

• “Basically”

“I just borrowed it.”
“It was only for a minute.”
“It was basically nothing.”

Minimization language often signals that the speaker knows the action carries weight and is trying to reduce perceived severity.

Psychologically, this reflects internal conflict. The person recognizes potential judgment and attempts to shrink the event before you can evaluate it fully.

One of the more revealing patterns is denying something that hasn’t been accused.

“I didn’t steal anything.”
“I would never cheat.”
“I’m not hiding anything from you.”

When no direct accusation has been made, spontaneous denial can indicate that the topic is already active in the speaker’s mind.

This is known as anticipatory defense. The person is responding to an internal fear rather than your actual words.

Here’s the most important thing I’ve learned: no single behavior proves deception.

People fidget when nervous. They over-explain when anxious. They pause when tired. Context matters. Personality matters.

What matters most is:

• Changes from baseline

• Clusters of cues

• Sensitivity around specific topics

In daily life, your goal isn’t to interrogate friends or colleagues. It’s to listen more carefully. Notice patterns. Ask clear follow-up questions. Create space where honesty feels safer than performance.

Often, when people deflect or minimize, it’s not because they’re malicious — it’s because they’re afraid. Afraid of judgment. Afraid of consequences. Afraid of losing control.

And here’s the paradox: the more calmly and neutrally you respond, the more likely you are to see the truth surface.

1. Establish a baseline. Notice how someone normally communicates.

2. Watch for clusters, not isolated behaviors.

3. Pay attention to deflection and minimization.

4. Stay calm. Pressure increases deception; safety encourages disclosure.

5. Ask direct, simple follow-up questions — and allow silence to work for you.

After thousands of conversations across a metal table, I’ve come to respect one simple principle: people reveal more than they realize — not through grand gestures, but through the small habits they assume no one is watching.

Most people aren’t master deceivers.

They’re just human.