Navigationbar

CHealth Home

    Home
    Top Stories
    Health Topics
    Health Assoc.
    Women
    Men
    Children/Teens
    Pregnancy/Infants
    Seniors
    Columnists
    Nutrition
    Fitness
    Pain Relief
    First Aid

    You Said it
    Forums

    TOOLS:
    Disease Database
    Drug Database
    Alt. Health
     Dictionary
    Herbal
     Encyclopedia
  




Search C-Health

 
  
December 31, 2001
Liar, liar, nose on fire

By DR. GIFFORD-JONES -- Special to C-Health

  • More columns by Dr. Gifford Jones

    GIFFORD-JONES Is he or she lying or giving you the straight facts? During 2002 knowing the difference can be mighty important. It can prevent some people from buying a Florida swamp. Or voting for the wrong politician. Or knowing who is friend or foe. So is there any medical way to judge whether someone is lying between his teeth?

    Dr. Alan Hirsch from the department of Neurology and Psychiatry at the Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago says there is.

    Next time you wonder "am I getting snow-balled by this person?" think of the "Pinocchio Syndrome."

    Dr. Hirsch claims that blood rushes to the nose when people lie. This extra blood may make the nose itchy. The result? People who stretch the truth tend to either scratch their nose or touch it more often.

    But there are other tell-tale signs. Some liars clear their throat more frequently or begin to stutter. And look for more grammatical errors in their speech.

    Dr. Hirsch adds that body language also helps to separate fact from fiction. When preparing to pitch the lie he or she is more likely to lean forward, constantly change position or rest elbows on the table.

    If you're still not sure whether you're being led down the primrose path look at their lips. Liars usually tighten their lips or frequently lick their lips. They also tend to swallow or drink more.

    Finally if they keep touching their hair, hold their hands in a clinched fist, take deep breaths and don't look you in the eye, there's a good chance you're dealing with a liar.

    So how would former President Clinton fare using these guidelines? Dr. Hirsch obtained tapes of his appearance before the grand jury on August 17, 1998. And also tapes from a fundraising speech.

    The result? During the initial part of the grand jury hearing when he was simply giving his name and other minor details he passed the test. He also got good marks for the fundraising speech.

    But when the truth began to fade before the grand jury, 19 of 23 signs of falsifying facts were present. There were conspicuous increases in sighs, shrugs, leaning forward and crossed arms. And you guessed it, the president was caught by the Pinocchio Syndrome.

    This isn't the first time that researchers have tried to find medical ways of detecting trustworthiness in humans.

    Dr. John A. Stern, chairman of the Psychology Department at Washington University in St. Louis, is an expert on blinking. His interest in blinking was piqued during the Watergate hearings.

    Stern says, "We don't blink at random. We blink at times that are psychologically important. You have listened to a question, you understand it, now you take time out for a blink. Blinks are punctuation marks. Their timing is what's going on in your head."

    So did former President Richard Nixon fare any better than Clinton? Not according to Stern. He says, "Nixon's blink rate increased markedly when asked a question he was not prepared to answer."

    Stern continued: "His speech was well controlled and he did not manifest any other symptoms of anxiety, but you could see it in his eyes. Most politicians have learned to disguise feelings except in ways they cannot inhibit." It appears that Nixon was a better liar than Clinton.

    Let's end on a note that would make any Scot blinking mad. A survey by the U.K. Food Standards agency of 205 bottles of whisky reveals that there's whisky and there's whisky.

    The agency claims that old single malts contain higher concentrations of a known animal carcinogen, ethyl carbamate, than the younger blended whiskies. In fact, some whiskies contain amounts of ethyl carbamate up to eight times higher than average. This is well above Canadian guidelines.

    That announcement would shock any Scot to learn that he was digging into his pocket to buy a potentially cancer-causing whisky. But there was worse news for frugal Scots.

    The news that he could have saved money by purchasing a cheaper brand of whisky would make any Scot roll over in his grave. The most expensive brands had the highest levels of ethyl carbamate.

    The former chairman of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society in Edinburgh isn't blinking. He remarked, "We live in a world today where everything we eat and drink is going to kill us off."

    Now there's a truthful remark! So since we all have to meet our maker eventually, what better way to go than from a nip of your favourite whisky. It sure beats other hazards.



    Click Here to make suggestions, comments about C-Health.

    Know someone who might be interested in this page? Just type in their email address to send them the URL


    Enter a destination email address:
    Enter your email address: