How to Be a Professional Liar
The art of answering everything except the question.
Before anything: I am not here to teach you how to lie. I am here to teach you how to catch the “liar, liar”, because NO, their pants aren’t always on fire.
But if you have to lie for a good cause, I am here to serve you the right technique. If you have to do it, do it right!
I love tangible examples, so I will start with one.
Lesson One Never Answer the Actual Question
In 1997, BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman was interviewing former British Home Secretary Michael Howard about his dealings with prison chief Derek Lewis.
Paxman asked: “Did you threaten to overrule him?”
Howard replied: “I did not overrule Derek Lewis.”[1]
Read those two sentences again. The question was about a threat. The answer was about whether Howard carried it out. One word disappeared, and with it went the question.
Paxman kept asking. Howard kept returning to what he had or had not done.
That exchange alone does not prove a lie. It does show how an answer can sound relevant while leaving the crucial point untouched.
This is the basic move behind a pivot: move from the question you were asked to one you would rather answer. The subjects can be so close that the substitution is easy to miss.
Imagine my son saying, “I want to tell you the truth, but promise you won’t punish me.” If I reply, “You know you can always tell me anything,” it sounds reassuring. But he asked about punishment, and I answered about trust. I still have not made the promise he asked for.
Lesson Two Give People Something More Frightening
Consider the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, President George W. Bush acknowledged uncertainty about how close Saddam Hussein was to developing a nuclear weapon. Then came this line:
“We cannot wait for the final proof … that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”[2]
A mushroom cloud. Try keeping your attention on the quality of the intelligence after someone puts that picture in your head.
The question was whether the evidence supported the threat being described. The speech made another question feel more urgent: what if we waited until it was too late? Uncertainty itself became a reason to act.
The invasion went ahead. The stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction central to its public justification were not found. The 2005 WMD Commission reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons program had ended in 1991.[3]
A frightening warning is not proof of deliberate deception. But fear can make asking for evidence sound like a dangerous delay.
One question requires proof. The other asks you to imagine your children under a mushroom cloud. You can see which one has the easier job.
Lesson Three Replace Evidence With a Beautiful Story
On October 15, 2015, The Wall Street Journal published reporting that challenged Theranos’s blood-testing technology. That evening, founder Elizabeth Holmes appeared on CNBC’s Mad Money.
One of her responses was: “first they think you’re crazy, then they fight you, and then all of a sudden you change the world.”[4]
It is a wonderful story to tell about yourself. The criticism becomes part of your journey. People are questioning you because that is what happens to people who change the world.
But the question about Theranos was much less romantic: could its technology reliably perform the tests the company claimed? The quotation gave the audience a story about a misunderstood innovator. It supplied no evidence about the tests.
Holmes addressed technical allegations elsewhere in the interview. But this response invited admiration for her mission rather than scrutiny of the machine.
In January 2022, Holmes was convicted on four investor-fraud-related counts. The Justice Department’s account of the trial described claims about the technology’s capabilities that the evidence did not support.[5]
Good intentions are not evidence of good behavior. Even a genuinely worthwhile mission cannot establish whether a machine works or whether an investor was told the truth.
And a beautiful vision can become a distraction from a broken reality.
Lesson Four Let the Biggest Number Do the Talking
Kellogg’s advertised Frosted Mini-Wheats as “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%.” Breakfast with a side of better concentration. Quite an offer.
In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission challenged that claim. According to the FTC, the study showed an average improvement of just under 11% compared with children who ate no breakfast. Only about one in nine children improved by 20% or more.[6]
That is a rather important detail to leave outside the headline. “Nearly 20%” sounds like the result you can expect, not a result achieved by a small part of the group.
Kellogg settled the FTC’s charges. The settlement did not constitute an admission that it had violated the law.[7]
The case gives us two useful questions to keep beside any impressive number: compared with what, and typical of whom?
A percentage can look wonderfully precise while the claim around it does the misleading.
Lesson Five Confidence Is Not Evidence
Go back to Holmes’s answer. She did not sound uncertain about her place in the story. She was going to change the world.
That confidence could not tell a patient whether a blood test was reliable. It could not tell an investor what the technology could actually do.
An honest person may hesitate because the facts are complicated. A dishonest person may sound certain because they have rehearsed the answer a hundred times. “I don’t know” can be a more useful answer than a confident speech.
Before admiring how someone says it, check what they have actually established.
Lesson Six Try the Technique on Yourself
Now comes the uncomfortable part. We have been discussing politicians and executives. But what about us?
We ask, “Am I happy in this relationship?” Then answer, “But we’ve been together for ten years.”
We ask, “Was this a good investment?” Then answer, “But the company has an incredible future.”
We ask, “Am I making progress?” Then answer, “But I’m working harder than everyone else.”
Recognize the technique? The length of a relationship does not establish its quality. A company’s potential does not automatically justify the price we paid for its shares. Working hard does not necessarily mean moving forward.
Sometimes we pivot because the truth threatens something we desperately want to believe. Perhaps that is why we are so vulnerable to people who do it professionally. They exploit a habit we already practice on ourselves.
How to Stop Being Fooled
Borrow the useful part of Paxman’s approach: remember the question.
When someone gives you a long, impressive answer, ask yourself what information you wanted before they started speaking. Then check whether you have it.
If you asked about a threat, do not settle for an answer about an action. If you asked whether a machine works, do not settle for a speech about changing the world. If someone offers a percentage, ask what was measured and what it was compared with.
A missing answer is a reason to ask again, not automatic proof of dishonesty. Someone may need to check a fact, respect a legitimate confidentiality limit, or simply say they do not know. Those are explanations you can examine. Eloquence alone gives you nothing to examine.
The purpose of a question is to obtain information. You are allowed to notice when you still do not have it.
So the next time someone gives you a brilliant answer, resist the temptation to applaud immediately. Remember what you asked.
Was that an answer, or was it a performance?
Sources and Context
The numbered links in the article lead to the sources below. Quotations are reproduced from the linked records; the ellipsis in the Iraq quotation omits “the smoking gun”.
1. Paxman and Howard. WNYC, On the Media, “Paxo.” Transcript reproduces the 1997 exchange. The article uses the exchange as evidence of evasion, not proof that Howard lied.
2. Bush speech on Iraq. White House archive, “President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat,” October 7, 2002. The speech supplies the quotation and its context.
3. Postwar WMD findings. Report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, March 31, 2005, especially Chapter One. Iraq had previously possessed chemical weapons; the article does not claim it had never had weapons of mass destruction.
4. Holmes on Mad Money. WIRED, “Everything You Need to Know About the Theranos Saga So Far,” May 2016. Documents the October 15, 2015 television appearance and quotation. The interpretation concerns the quoted response, not the entire interview.
5. Holmes investor fraud verdict. U.S. Department of Justice, “Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty of Investor Fraud,” January 4, 2022. Four investor-related guilty counts; Holmes was acquitted on four patient-related counts. The article does not describe her as convicted of defrauding patients.
6. Mini Wheats advertising claim. Federal Trade Commission, “Kellogg Settles FTC Charges That Ads for Frosted Mini-Wheats Were False,” April 20, 2009. Provides the advertising claim and the FTC’s description of the study.
7. Kellogg final consent order. Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Approves Final Consent Order in Matter Concerning Kellogg Company,” July 31, 2009. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes and does not constitute an admission of a law violation.