[COPY] Tactical Definition Substitution: When the Finger Points Away from the Truth

If the accepted definition places you in difficult position, create a new one.

Louis Conte’s The Truth be Told: Exploring corruption, controversy, and deception in today’s world from the perspective of a forensic psychophysiologist (Polygraph Examiner).

Louis Conte is a professional Polygraph Examiner, investigator, and writer. He has conducted over fourteen hundred polygraph examinations and has insight in assessing veracity and deception. Observation and careful attention to words and behavior often reveal the truth.

I spend much of my working day in polygraph sessions with convicted sex offenders, trying to determine if they are being honest about their behavior. Over the past many years, I have examined over fourteen hundred men, and a few women, who have been convicted of possessing child pornography, violating children, and sexually abusing their victims.

This work is important because, as you might imagine, sex offenders often lie about their deviant behaviors. These men can have dozens of victims, but many come to the attention of legal authorities for only one case. They are required to take polygraph examinations as a condition of their community supervision. These offenders are supervised by Probation Officers and are required to progress through sex offender treatment programs designed to limit their risk to society and prevent future victimizations.

My partners in this work – the Officers and therapists – are unsung heroes who supervise and treat sex offenders. They have prevented countless victimizations. My job is to put sex offenders through an intense interview to obtain information, ultimately leading to a polygraph examination where truthfulness is vetted.

If the examinee sitting in front of me committed one known crime, there may be more. Or perhaps there was only one offense. Should a person’s life be judged by one mistake? It is also possible this man has dozens of victims, destroyed countless lives or even killed victims that no one knows about. It is understood in law enforcement circles that that serial killers are men who also sexually offend. My next case may be such a person.

I have dozens of questions running through my mind every time I am assigned a new case. The challenge is to remain objective and assess the veracity of a person who may have a lot of issues and years of secret criminal behavior they have never disclosed.

And I want them to disclose their behavior. If you don’t know what someone has done in the past, you have very little insight into what they are capable of in the future. I always tell the Officers I work with, “You cannot know what you know until you know it.” I do not want Officers to realize how dangerous a sex offender is by learning about it in a television news report.

This is the intense environment I work in.

The best polygraph examiners will tell you that the instrument – the polygraph device – is only one element of assessment when trying to determine whether an examinee is truthful or is lying.

I observe how the examinees answer questions when I know the answers and how they answer questions when I do not have information. I listen to what they say, how they say it and what their face and body do when they are answering questions.

I will ask every question I can ask until I can’t think of any more questions.

Now, truth be told, there is no one way to determine a person’s veracity. There is no universal indicator. Every person is unique. Even if they have committed terrible acts, the examinee has to be treated with respect – particularly if you want them to disclose information to you.

Even though there are no universal indicators, people always demonstrate some signs when they are uncomfortable with the topic of discussion. Responses to questions where the examinee begins swallowing, blinking more than usual, covering their throat with their hands, avoiding eye contact or fidgeting with objects, indicate that more inspection is required.

If the person answers a direct question with a response that is evasive, it is most likely an attempt to steer the examiner in another direction - while omitting the truth from the answer.

History is full of such examples.

Many will recall President Clinton’s response to a question about the nature of a relationship with a White House intern:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Finger pointing is almost always negatively perceived but emerges when a powerful figure realizes that their authority is being challenged. I have observed that some offenders will also resort to finger pointing when they feel cornered by the facts.

Clinton uses his finger to point the listener in a different direction in an attempt to evade the facts about his relationship with a student intern.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman!” Well, his version of sexual relations is a bit narrow. Clinton redefined sexual relations to serve his purposes. We eventually learned the truth thanks to DNA evidence left on a blue dress.

This is what I call “Tactical Definition Substitution.” Simply stated, if the definition places you in a difficult position, create a new one.

A more recent example of this behavior is provided by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the now retired Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases. In the video below, we see Dr. Fauci knows that like President Clinton, he is in a difficult position. Senator Rand Paul has accused him of lying to Congress about funding Gain of Function research at the Wuhan Lab in China through a not-for-profit called the Ecco Health Alliance.

Dr. Fauci resorts to pronounced finger pointing in this exchange with Senator Paul and states, “If anyone is lying here, it is you!”

"If anyone here is lying, it is you!"

In the next video, Fauci employs his version of “Tactical Definition Substitution.” Under the old definition of Gain of Function research, he may well have lied to Congress about funding he approved.

So Fauci announced that there is a new definition for Gain of Function research on the National Institutes of Health website.

The new definition appeared just before the Senate hearing. Armed with the updated version of Gain of Function, Fauci claimed that he did not lie to Congress. 

"According to the current operating definition..."

Whether Fauci’s tactical definition substitution holds up in future hearings is yet to be determined. But we do know that history does not favor those who evade questions and point the finger of blame at others.

Eventually, the truth comes out.

Special note:

Dr. Lyons-Weiler, or Jack, as I call him, is a close friend of mine. One of my sons call him Uncle Jack.

Don’t tell him this, but I regard Jack is being a brilliant scientist and an ethical, compassionate man. His writing at Popular Rationalism has raised the awareness of thousands of readers who visit Substack.

For years, we discussed the many deceptions in the arena of public health. When the Health and Human Service's COVID response became clear, he asked me to consider putting a course together for the IPAK-EDU community.

I was delighted to do so.

I invite the reader to enroll in the course – Truth and Deception here:

If you are interested in looking at human beings in a new way, I encourage you to take this course. We will look at everything from non-verbal behavior to twisting the truth with words to understanding the techniques used by those in power to deceive.