Pop Pyschology and Hillary: Please Stop the Stupid

I saw this, and the sheer stupidity blew my mind (4Simpsons):

Re. Hillary’s tears: One of my employees is a Certified Fraud Examiner and studies some interesting things.  For what it is worth, he had this to say:

I was watching the Hillary Clinton crying incident on the news last night.

While on vacation I was reading a book on body language and detecting lies and deceit.

If a person looks down and to the right (as you face the subject) it indicates that the subject is creating a physical feeling not experiencing a remembered feeling.

Throughout this entire segment, she was looking down and to the right. This is a tell tale sign that the feeling was a created experience (or better known as a lie) not a real emotion.

Wow.  Some guy read some book on body language and he can tell Hillary is lying.  Brilliant.

Let’s take a look at this pop psychology.  First, down and to the right indicates an internal dialogue according to this guide.  Second, watch the video:

Here eyes are all over the place, often looking at the people she is talking with.  Sometime they linger down and to the right, sometimes down and to the left.  Third, there is of course an internal dialog while one is speaking.  Whether its a conversation in a pub or a speech on the campaign trail, people tend to think out their replies.  Especially old hands at politics.  “Think before you speak” is sage advice for a politician whose every word will be poured over by newspapers, pundits, and opponents.  Fourth a specific behavior like eye movement is not always indicative of one’s internal state even if a guide like this was peer review and reliable.  Which brings me to the final point.  Is there a peer reviewed study showing, reliably, that eye movements can help one detect internal states in a consistent and reliable manner?  Or is this just pop psychology?


2 Responses

  1. Hi – thanks for the link. Maybe it was just pop psychology. It wasn’t meant to be definitive proof that Hillary is disingenuous. We have ample evidence of that. Consider her attempts to position herself as a moderate on abortion, at the same time she tries to show how she’s more pro-abortion than Obama (which is pretty tough, considering he is pro-partial birth abortion and fought a born-alive infants protection act). But I believe her that she is very, very, pro-abortion on demand.

  2. Hey Neil,
    Check out her stated positions. She doesn’t seem to be positioning herself as a moderate on reproductive rights there. Could you point me to a place where she does?

    The thing is, looking at that clip, it wasn’t any kind of proof she’s disingenuous.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: