Are pathological liars narcissistic?

Also, do not shy away from saying that a person is lying. People generally say, “That is not true,” or “That is false,” in response to someone lying. However, gaslighters/narcissists are pathological liars

Remind yourself how lying messes up your life.

Lying destroys relationships and adds a tremendous burden to your life. Understanding that there will be consequences is a powerful deterrent in breaking the habit of lying. Phillip suffered the consequences of his lying in a big way: “I used to lie all the time, and I would normally end up getting caught in the end. It took me going to prison to find out that the truth is a much better way to go then to lie about everything. Take the time to think about what the consequences are going to be of what I say or are about to do?”

Do pathological liars hate it when other people lie about them?

Pathological liars lie about almost anything. With personal experience dealing with pathological liars is they dont appreciate having their lies and ability/techniques to hide/fool found out/exposed to the victims they are using. They target and abuse ‘nice people that believe and trust them…..pathological liars are emotionally abusive parasites .

Can pathological liars be helped?

No medication will fix the issue. The best option is psychotherapy. But even therapy canpose challenges, because pathological liars aren’t in control of their lying. They may start telling lies to the therapist instead of addressing the problem directly.

Crying rape falsely: rare or common?

The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is claiming that a dirty tricks campaign lay behind the charges of rape and sexual assault laid against him by two Swedish women last week.
The rape charge has been dismissed as groundless by the Swedish authorities, who are still investigating the charge of sexual assault, The Times reports today (p 25). Mr Assange met the two women ten days ago. He denies the charges, but fears that they have damaged him and his organisation, which recently published 70,000 confidential frontline reports on the Afghan war, causing fury in the Pentagon.
Sweden has the highest rate of reported rape in the world, 46.5 cases per 100,000 people, almost twice that of England & Wales. But it also has a low conviction rate: around 10 per cent of cases reported in Sweden end in convictions. In general, there is a roughly inverse relationship between the reported rape in individual countries and the proportion of these reports that end in conviction.

Continue reading “Crying rape falsely: rare or common?”

False claims of stalking, “gang stalking” and delusions of persecution

See also: False accusations and Persecutory delusions

In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims.[30] In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false.[31]

According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions, stating that “after eight uncertain cases were excluded, the false reporting rate was judged to be 11.5%, with the majority of false victims suffering delusions (70%).”[31] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%.[32]

News reports have described how groups of Internet users have cooperated to exchange detailed conspiracy theories involving coordinated activities by large numbers of people called “gang stalking”.[33] The activities involved are described as involving electronic harassment, the use of “psychotronic weapons“, and other alleged mind control techniques. These have been reported by external observers as being examples of belief systems, as opposed to reports of objective phenomena.[34] Some psychiatrists and psychologists say “Web sites that amplify reports of mind control and group stalking” are “an extreme community that may encourage delusional thinking” and represent “a dark side of social networking. They may reinforce the troubled thinking of the mentally ill and impede treatment.”[35][36]

A study from Australia and the United Kingdom by Lorraine Sheridan and David James[37] compared 128 self-defined victims of ‘gang-stalking’ with a randomly selected group of 128 self-declared victims of stalking by an individual. All 128 ‘victims’ of gang-stalking were judged to be delusional, compared with only 3.9% of victims of individual-stalking. There were highly significant differences between the two samples on depressive symptoms, post-traumatic symptomatology and adverse impact on social and occupational function, with the self-declared victims of gang-stalking more severely affected. The authors concluded that “group-stalking appears to be delusional in basis, but complainants suffer marked psychological and practical sequelae. This is important in the assessment of risk in stalking cases, early referral to psychiatric services and allocation of police resources.”[37]

Detecting deception through small talk and comparable truth baselines

The present experiment investigates similarities in participants’ nonverbal and verbal behaviours when responding to baseline and investigative questions, comparing two different types of baselines. Police literature suggests to obtain a baseline through small talk, whereas academic literature underlines the importance of baseline and investigative themes to be comparable. First, a baseline was obtained (either small talk or comparable), then the investigative questioning started. During the investigative questioning, participants either truthfully reported a set of actions they had actually performed or lied about them. Findings revealed that truth tellers and liars in the small talk condition did not differ in their level of similarity when responding to the baseline and investigative questions. In the comparable truth condition, levels of verbal similarity between the baseline and investigative questions were higher for truth tellers than for liars, but only for one variable: spatial detail. Results therefore showed that a small talk baseline should not be used to assess interviewees’ credibility, and that a comparable truth baseline, although better than a small talk baseline, is still problematic.

Continue reading “Detecting deception through small talk and comparable truth baselines”

Outsmarting liars

Hypothesis 1: Unlike truth tellers, liars will not calibrate their deceptive statements based on their CTB.

Hypothesis 2: There will be more similarity in verbal cues (RM-scores) between truth tellers’ CBT and target statement than between liars’ CTB and target statement.

Hypothesis 3: The effect size of the difference in verbal cues of the target statement (RM-scores) between truth tellers and liars will increase when including the CTB.

Hypothesis 4: Observers who receive a CTB will achieve higher overall lie detection accuracy rates when judging the target statements than those who do not receive a CTB.

Continue reading “Outsmarting liars”

Baselining as a Lie Detection Method

For entirely valid reasons, practitioners urge researchers to develop within-subjects lie detection methods. This article highlights some problems with the existing and popular nonverbal baseline lie detection method and with the use of the Validity Checklist in SVA. The article further suggests how verbal within-subjects lie detection methods can be introduced in interview settings by implementing verbal lie detection interview protocols designed in recent years. The article concludes that these within-subjects methods do not provide the ultimate solution as clear cut-off scores cannot be established, but they are a step forward in verbal lie detection.

Continue reading “Baselining as a Lie Detection Method”

Personality traits of a pathological liar

Certain personality traits where pathological lying may occur include:

  1. Narcissism or self-centered behaviors and thought patterns
  2. Selfishness
  3. Abusiveattitude
  4. Obsessive, controlling, and compulsive behaviors
  5. Impulsivity
  6. Aggressiveness
  7. Jealous behavior
  8. Manipulative behaviors
  9. Deceptiveness
  10. Socially awkward, uncomfortable, or isolated
  11. Low self-esteem
  12. Tempermentalness
  13. Anger