Get the Truth: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Persuade Anyone to Tell All (19 page)

The approach that Boris advocated accomplishes a purpose: It produces information from the individual upon whom the physical and mental abuse is being inflicted—the assumption being not only that the individual has the information the abuser is seeking in the first place, but that the information he provides to alleviate his suffering is truthful. Everybody wins—the abuser gets his information, and the individual gets the pain to stop. But what Boris apparently couldn’t grasp is that the assumption is entirely unfounded, and that the premise is necessarily a false one. It’s also one that raises an essential question: Was a problem solved, or was one created? History will ultimately be the arbiter.

What we as a nation, and as a global community, need to ask ourselves is whether we’re prepared to go the route of abuse and torment, and where that route will eventually lead. Beyond the question of whether it will take us to a place where we’re able to get the truth, we have to consider the slippery slope down which that route might go. If we decide it’s acceptable to take this approach with terrorists, then who’s to say it shouldn’t be taken with sex offenders, white-collar criminals, or reckless drivers? At what point down the slope does it stop?

The approach we’ve shared with you in this book is one that has proven throughout our careers to be unmatched in enabling people in all walks of life, and in the broadest of circumstances, to get the truth. But there’s more to it than that. It’s an approach that is wholly consistent with the moral standards that have been taught through the ages by the world’s religious traditions. It’s consistent with the legal and ethical principles upon which this country was founded. And it’s consistent with the values that the Central Intelligence Agency has striven to uphold since its inception.

We’re happy to stay the course.

Appendix I

ELABORATION ON APPLYING THE ELICITATION MODEL IN BUSINESS, IN LAW, AND IN EVERYDAY LIFE: CHAPTER COMMENTARY BY PETER ROMARY

The elicitation methodology that Phil, Michael, and Susan have shared in this book is a remarkably powerful mechanism for getting the truth in an interpersonal encounter. As they’ve shown, its power lies, to a large extent, in the broad nature of its relevance. The techniques they’ve developed and practiced in the intelligence and law enforcement arenas have widespread applicability well outside those realms, they’ve explained, in undertakings as routine as hiring an employee or purchasing a car. The common thread that weaves through the experiences they’ve shared, from interrogating a spy to getting to the bottom of employee theft in a retail establishment, is the concept of influence. It’s a concept that warrants elaboration in this section of the book, as it relates to the everyday situations we all find ourselves in when a desired outcome is dependent on the truthfulness of another party.

As I’ve tapped the power of influence in my capacity as a negotiator and legal advocate, I’ve come to recognize that the tools and skills used by the world’s top intelligence operatives to vet sources and catch spies are largely the same tools and skills that are used in negotiation situations, whether the aim is to win the release of a hostage, hammer out the terms of a corporate merger, or secure a long overdue pay raise. We stand a far better chance of prevailing in any of these scenarios if we’re able to step into the shoes of the other party, so that we can understand where he’s coming from—what he knows, what he wants, and what motivates him.

In this part of the book, then, we want to explore the concept of influence that underlies the methodology we’ve developed to get the truth, and examine how that methodology can be used not only in interviewing and elicitation situations, but in achieving a favorable outcome in any interpersonal exchange in which the two sides have conflicting agendas.

Throughout my career, I have interviewed and elicited information from people under a broad range of circumstances, and I have come to appreciate the role that influence plays in motivating people not only to share truthful information, but to align their agendas more closely with those of the people they’re dealing with. I don’t pretend for a moment to be the best in my field, but I have learned a great deal along the way, largely from the mistakes I’ve made and the times I’ve been beaten. There have been plenty of those. But there is a great deal of consolation in the opportunity to share what I’ve learned from them.

The following commentaries are intended to help explain what it is that makes our methodology so effective, and to illustrate the crossover between the world of the spy, and the world the rest of us navigate every day.

SPIES, LIARS, AND CROOKS: FOLLOWING THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD

What do spies, computer hackers, armed robbers, cheating spouses, and gamblers all have in common? If that sounds like a riddle, it’s actually more of a puzzle. All of them, curiously enough, genuinely believe they’ll be able to dodge any negative consequences of their actions.

Why did Mary walk into a room and undergo a polygraph examination with one of the most highly skilled interrogators in the world, rather than simply resign from her position with the CIA? Why did Osama bin Laden opt to reside in a conspicuous compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, less than a mile from a military academy that was visited by U.S. and Allied military personnel? Why do many of us still text and drive? Why do we buy lottery tickets when economists refer to the lottery as an “idiot tax,” given that our chances of actually winning the jackpot are typically in the range of a couple of hundred million to one?

The short and simple answer is that these people—indeed, the large majority of us—choose to bask in the eternal sunshine of
optimism bias
.

In L. Frank Baum’s novel
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
, unlike in the film, upon entering the Emerald City the characters are given green-tinted eyeglasses to wear, so that the city appears to be more green than it really is—we’re told in the novel that the city is “no more green than any other city.” Think of optimism bias as our tendency to view the world through those glasses, so that what we see is more appealing than the reality of the situation.

Bad stuff, you see, never happens to the biased optimist. Prison time, divorce court, a head-on collision, just aren’t in the cards. Before you sit back and think, “What fools,” consider this: According to Tali Sharot, a leading researcher in the field, the vast majority of us exhibit optimism bias. For many of us, a small dose of it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it’s important to take stock of any given situation and ensure that we’re not risking everything by donning our green-tinted eyeglasses.

Optimism bias occurs when a person believes that an activity he’s engaged in carries less risk for himself than it does for another person who engages in the same activity, or that he stands a higher chance of reward. This biased optimism can lead people to engage in risky behavior, because they’re convinced they won’t be caught, hurt, killed, or victimized by some other negative consequence. Skilled negotiators and interviewers are aware of its existence, recognize it in themselves and others, and adjust their actions accordingly. We know that while we tend to be very optimistic about ourselves, our families, and our friends, we’re not as optimistic about the lives of others. So my optimism that I’m going to win my big case is coupled with a belief that the hapless lawyer on the other side is going to have things go horribly wrong for her.

In nearly every nation, it’s a crime to lie to law enforcement officials. In some cases, it might be a minor offense called “providing fictitious information to a public officer,” with the penalty, at most, probation or a fine. In other circumstances, it may be a case of “perverting the course of justice,” which can carry a long prison sentence. Still, people lie to law enforcement officials all the time—in some cases hoping, in many others genuinely believing, they won’t be caught.

It’s a crime to lie to an immigration officer when entering the United States, just as it is when entering almost any country. Yet consider the case of a man with dual citizenship who was refused a visa to enter the United States on one of his passports because of a criminal conviction in his past. Rather than seek a waiver of exclusion, he used his other passport to enter the country on multiple occasions, risking prosecution not only in the United States, but in the country that issued the passport he used to skirt the law. Clearly, no rational person would do this if he believed he would be caught, as such crimes can carry substantial prison sentences. But with the advanced technology and global data sharing that immigration authorities worldwide now employ, people are prosecuted every day for crimes committed years ago that are just now being discovered. Optimism bias can lead to incredibly risky behavior.

When I think of optimism bias, I’m reminded of a criminal client I represented a number of years ago. My client was accused of stealing a camera and then pawning it. He had told everyone who would listen that he was not guilty—the police, the prosecutor, his family, the jailer; he even told a couple of judges. Finally, his “probable cause” court date arrived, and I was ready to go. The arresting officer, who was a friend of mine—a benefit of having spent years training and representing police officers—asked if we could have a chat out in the hall. Out I went, and the officer produced the camera—a brand-new digital model that, at the time, was quite uncommon. On the camera were several pictures of my client, posing with a smile, that had been taken by the pawnbroker. A problem for my client arose at the shop when he couldn’t produce a valid form of identification, so the pawnbroker asked if he could take his picture. My client dutifully obliged, varying his pose for each photo. We copped a plea that day, and my client learned a salutary lesson in the pitfalls of optimism bias.

Another classic example of this bias, and one that’s very familiar to lawyers, is found in the domestic relations arena. The divorce rate in the United States is about fifty percent—one in every two marriages breaks up. Yet, as Sharot’s research points out, you’d be hard pressed to find a newlywed couple who would categorically state their belief that their marriage will, likely as not, end in divorce. The news isn’t all bad for lawyers: There’s enough uncertainty among newlyweds to ensure a steady demand for prenuptial agreements. But the unfortunate truth is the belief of most newlyweds that they stand next to no chance of getting divorced, just like the belief of people who text while driving that they stand next to no chance of crashing, is a view that is divorced from reality.

As a cautionary note, I’ve found it’s very possible in the negotiation context to harm your own chances of a favorable settlement by unintentionally fueling optimism bias in the other party. I have seen cases in which negotiators, hoping to cut to the chase, make a very reasonable first offer or demand. The other side, expecting the initial offer to merely be a starting point, becomes more emboldened by the prospect of coming out with a far better deal than was first imagined. As a result, the other party digs in its heels, and its counteroffer is far less favorable than it otherwise might have been. Social psychologists refer to this phenomenon as
anchoring
.

Think about this in the context of selling your house. You list it for $200,000, hoping that it will sell for $190,000. A potential buyer who is prequalified for a maximum of $190,000 comes in and offers $188,000. Suddenly you become very optimistic, and surmise that if the initial offer is that high, surely you’ll be able to get more than the $190,000 you originally had in mind. You stick to your guns at full asking price, or a price slightly below it. The deal you gladly would have accepted had your optimism bias not kicked in now may well be lost.

I’ve seen this happen on any number of occasions when I’ve served as a mediator, and one party came in with a very reasonable first offer that the other side didn’t expect. I’ve learned three key lessons from those experiences. First, I found it prudent to advise my clients in advance not to allow a reasonable initial offer from the other side to enhance their expectations. Second, I learned that it was preferable strategically to let the other side make the first offer so we could assess its reasonableness and couch our demand accordingly. Finally, I would ensure that the demand our side made was elevated, not so high that it would be viewed as foolish, but high enough so that it would not encourage any baseless optimism on the other side of the table.

The reason it’s so important for us to be aware of optimism bias is simply that it’s very helpful to know what it is that creates confidence in those who can cause us harm, and even more helpful to be cognizant of how easy it is for our own behavior to lead us down a dangerous path. That recognition won’t shatter the optimism itself, but it will help us to manage potential risk by, perhaps, obtaining insurance, or making contingency plans to be prepared in the event that things go wrong.

Good guys or bad guys, most of us tend to be optimists. My colleagues and I are fully aware that every mole, every spy, every terrorist, and every criminal we’ve encountered has, to some degree, an optimism about him that many investigators might, perhaps foolishly, dismiss as arrogance or hubris. It’s far more genuine than many would expect.

SEEKING THE TRUTH, OR CONFIRMING WHAT WE BELIEVE IS TRUE?

How easy it might have been for Omar, with his trusted track record and devout faith, to slip past Phil, as he had done with so many other officers assigned to debrief him over the years. Phil fully expected the encounter to be a simple matter of confirming the conclusions of his predecessors. Fortunately, he was careful not to allow that expectation to sway him. He was well aware how easily we all can fall prey to
confirmation bias
—the tendency of people to believe information that confirms their expectations or preconceptions. Had Phil not checked any potential confirmation bias at the door, he might very well have been beaten.