After removing the link, Singer's lead increases by 741 words. I guess more if you count my post, but I'm just offering play by play.
Also, there are some who say that those who give specifics are more likely to be lying. I just assume everything that I am told is a lie and then try to prove the null hypothesis if I care enough; it's much easier.
Finally, now that I've actually read the post, the questions in #3 are terrible...you don't put someone at ease by making them feel like they are being challenged. You also wouldn't frame the question like that at all; it would be more like, "I'm sure there are people out there who would doubt what you're saying; is anything about this verifiable?"
It's all about tone and phrasing. The phrasing puts people at ease so they are responding from the position of thinking the interviewer is on their side. Even if they go into the interview knowing the interviewer is NOT on their side, the phrasing is a deliberate psychological trick to cause a more general openness in a person's answer.
An interview can be an interrogation, but not if you're openly trying to interrogate.
Reply With Quote