Michelle: Alright Mark, quick-fire. What do you know about the book Mindreader? Mark: I know it’s the book I should have read before I agreed to that 'once-in-a-lifetime' timeshare presentation last year. My wallet is still recovering from my inability to read the room. Michelle: (Laughs) Exactly! Well, the author, David J. Lieberman, might have saved you. What's fascinating is that he's not just some pop-psychologist; his techniques are mandatory for psychological operations graduates in the U.S. military and he consults for the FBI and CIA. Mark: Whoa. So this isn't just for avoiding timeshares, it's serious business. This is the real deal. Michelle: It is. And it all starts with something deceptively simple: the words we choose every single day. The book, Mindreader: The New Science of Deciphering What People Really Think, What They Really Want, and Who They Really Are, argues that our language is a constant, subconscious broadcast of our true feelings. Mark: Okay, I'm intrigued. I feel like I'm about to get a superpower that's going to make every conversation I have from now on way more interesting... or terrifying. Michelle: A little of both, probably. But it’s less about being a mind-reading superhero and more about understanding the hidden architecture of communication.

Michelle: So let's start with a really common scenario. A colleague gives a presentation. You want to compliment them. You could say, "Nice presentation," or you could say, "I really liked your presentation." Which one feels more sincere? Mark: Definitely the second one. "I really liked it." The first one, "Nice presentation," feels like something you say on your way to the coffee machine without breaking stride. It's polite filler. Michelle: Exactly. And Lieberman says that tiny difference is everything. The use of personal pronouns—I, me, my—signals psychological ownership. When you say "I liked it," you are personally endorsing the statement. You're attaching yourself to the words. When you omit the "I," you're subconsciously creating distance. Mark: Huh. I've never thought about it that way, but it makes total sense. It's the difference between owning the feeling and just observing it. Michelle: Precisely. And this becomes incredibly important in higher-stakes situations. Lieberman tells this story from law enforcement about a person filing a report for a stolen car. An innocent person will almost always say, "My car was stolen." They feel a sense of violation, of personal loss. Mark: Right, it's their car. Michelle: But someone filing a false insurance claim often creates distance. They'll say, "The car was stolen." They subconsciously don't want to claim ownership of the lie, so they drop the "my." They refer to the object of the lie in the third person. Mark: Okay, but isn't that a bit of a leap? Maybe the person is just formal or in shock. I feel like if my car was stolen, I might be so flustered I just say "the car." Michelle: That's the critical point Lieberman makes throughout the book. It's never about a single tell. A single instance could mean anything. It's about looking for a pattern and, more importantly, a shift from someone's normal way of speaking. If your normally very personal, expressive friend suddenly starts speaking in this detached, third-person way about a problem, that's a flag. Mark: I can see that. It reminds me of when I was a kid and my brother broke a lamp. My mom asked what happened, and I immediately said, "He fell." Not, "I might have, you know, created a tripwire with a blanket that caused him to fall." Michelle: (Laughs) A classic case of the passive voice! "He fell." "A mistake was made." It’s a linguistic trick to dodge responsibility. The action happened, but the sentence structure conveniently leaves out who did it. A person taking responsibility would use the active voice: "I made a mistake." Mark: It's amazing how these tiny grammatical choices are actually huge windows into our psyche. We're all walking around broadcasting our insecurities and deceptions without even realizing it. Michelle: We really are. There was even a study that analyzed language from job interviews. High-performers used about 60% more first-person pronouns—"I did this," "I managed that." They took ownership of their accomplishments. Low-performers used far more second and third-person pronouns—"you know how it is," or "the team did..."—distancing themselves from personal responsibility. Mark: That's fascinating. It's like confidence has a grammatical signature. Michelle: It absolutely does. And so does emotional connection. Think about a kid coming home from the first day of camp. If they say, "I ate breakfast, then we went to the park, and I got to go swimming," you know they had a great, engaging day. Mark: Yeah, they're the star of their own story. Michelle: But if they say, "First, it was breakfast, then they moved us to the park, until they sent us to the pool," what does that tell you? Mark: That they felt like a piece of luggage being moved around. Totally detached. They had a miserable time. Wow. That's a powerful distinction. Michelle: It is. It’s not about the words themselves, but the psychological posture behind them. Are you an active participant in your own life, or is life just happening to you? Your pronouns will tell the story.

Mark: That makes sense. We're trying to distance ourselves from something bad, or connect with something good. Which brings up a bigger question... what's really going on inside someone who does this all the time? Is it just about lying, or something deeper? Michelle: Now you're getting to the core of the book. Lieberman argues that these linguistic tells are just the surface. They're symptoms of a much deeper engine: our ego and our self-esteem. And he has a really counter-intuitive take on this. Mark: Lay it on me. Michelle: We tend to think of someone with a huge ego—an arrogant, boastful person—as someone who has sky-high self-esteem. They love themselves, right? Mark: Right. That's the classic definition of a narcissist. They think they're God's gift to the world. Michelle: And Lieberman says that is completely wrong. He argues that ego and self-esteem are inversely related. The bigger the ego, the lower the self-esteem. The arrogance, the boasting, the need to be the center of attention—it's all a desperate mask to hide a deep, gnawing sense of worthlessness. Mark: Wait, hold on. That flips everything I thought I knew. So the person who seems the most confident and full of themselves is actually the most fragile? Michelle: Exactly. Think of the arrogant businessman who runs roughshod over everyone. He's not driven by a love of himself; he's driven by a terror of being seen as a failure. He builds this "false self" made of money, power, and status because he believes his "true self" is unlovable and inadequate. Mark: So the ego is like a pufferfish. It blows itself up to look big and scary to hide the fact that it's actually small and terrified. Michelle: That's a perfect analogy. And research backs this up. Studies show that people with narcissistic traits have an elevated physiological stress response. Their cortisol levels spike when they face frustration or criticism. They are, quite literally, more sensitive and reactive to emotional distress because their sense of self is so brittle. Mark: Wow. So their arrogance is a full-time, high-stress job of keeping that mask from cracking. Michelle: It is. True self-esteem, Lieberman says, is quiet. It's humility. It's the person who can lose a game of chess and not have their entire sense of self-worth crumble. Their confidence in that specific situation might be low, but their fundamental belief that they are a worthy person remains intact. The narcissist can't handle that; any crack in the facade is a threat to their entire identity. Mark: This explains so much about certain people I've known. Their need for constant validation, their inability to ever admit fault... it's not because they think they're perfect, it's because they're terrified we'll find out they're not. Michelle: Precisely. Lieberman has this great line: "The mask one wears is not so much a disguise as a self-portrait." It's a portrait of the person they desperately wish they were, because they can't stand the person they fear they are. Mark: So when we're "reading" someone, we're not just looking for lies. We're looking for the gap between the mask and the reality. Michelle: That's the deepest level of mind-reading. It's moving from "what are they saying?" to "what pain is making them say it?" And when that fragile, masked ego feels like it's losing control, that's when things can get dangerous.

Michelle: Exactly. And when that fragile, masked ego feels like it's losing control, that's when things can get dangerous. This is where the book moves from fascinating psychology to critical self-protection. Mark: Okay, so how do we know when someone is just difficult versus when they're a genuine threat? Michelle: Lieberman provides a really practical tool for this, which he calls the JACA scale. It's an acronym for assessing how likely someone is to act on a threat, whether it's against others or themselves. J-A-C-A. Mark: Alright, break it down for me. Michelle: First is J for Justification. Does the person feel their actions are justified? Do they have a narrative of victimhood where they believe they've been wronged and are entitled to retribution? A person who feels justified is far more dangerous than someone who knows what they're doing is wrong. Mark: That makes sense. They've already given themselves moral permission. Michelle: Second is A for Alternatives. Does the person believe they have any other options? If someone says, "I have no choice," or "This is the only way," that's a major red flag. They've cornered themselves psychologically, and violence can start to look like the only exit. Mark: So they've lost perspective. It's tunnel vision. Michelle: Exactly. Third is C for Consequences. Have they considered the consequences, and more importantly, do they care? A person on a path to violence has often stopped caring about what will happen to them—losing their job, going to jail. When the consequences no longer matter, the deterrent is gone. Mark: That's a chilling thought. They're detached from the future. Michelle: And finally, A for Ability. Do they have the means and capacity to carry out the threat? This is the practical part. It's one thing for someone to make an angry comment; it's another if they have access to weapons, have a history of violence, and have a concrete plan. Mark: So, Justification, Alternatives, Consequences, Ability. JACA. This is incredibly useful, but also a bit terrifying. How do you use this without becoming paranoid about everyone who has a bad day? Michelle: That's the key question. And Lieberman's answer is to trust your instincts. He says your subconscious mind is a far more powerful threat detector than your conscious mind. The JACA scale isn't for diagnosing people from afar. It's a framework to give language to your intuition. When you get that "uh-oh" feeling about someone, you can run through the scale and ask yourself why. Is it because they sound so justified in their anger? Is it because they talk like they have no alternatives? Mark: So it's about validating your gut feeling with a logical checklist. Michelle: Precisely. It helps you distinguish between a harmless vent and a credible threat. And the book is clear: past behavior is the single best predictor of future behavior. People don't just "snap." There's almost always a history of smaller aggressions, of blaming others, of that fragile ego lashing out. Mark: It's like the person who kicks the cat eventually kicks the dog, and then... Michelle: And then it escalates. The book stresses that if you see these patterns, especially combined with major life stressors like a job loss or a breakup, you need to take it seriously.

Mark: You know, when you put it all together, this book isn't really about becoming a human lie detector, is it? That feels like the cheap party trick version. Michelle: Exactly. It's about developing a kind of psychological literacy. The real power isn't in catching lies, but in understanding the pain or insecurity or fear that so often drives the deception. It's a shift from judgment to diagnosis. Mark: Instead of thinking "That person is a jerk," you start thinking, "What's happening inside them that's making them act this way?" It's a more compassionate way of looking at the world, even when you're protecting yourself. Michelle: That's the whole point. Lieberman wrote this book to empower people, not to make them cynical. Understanding these dynamics gives you a sense of control and safety in a world that can feel chaotic. You're no longer just reacting to people's behavior; you're understanding the source code behind it. Mark: It’s about seeing the puppet master, which is usually their own ego. Michelle: Perfectly put. And if there's one thing listeners can take away, it's to start paying attention to the small things. For the next week, just notice the pronouns people use when they talk about their successes and failures. Don't judge, just observe. Notice who takes ownership and who deflects. Mark: That's a great, simple exercise. And we'd love to hear what you notice. Share your most surprising observation with us on social media. What's the one phrase you'll never hear the same way again? Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.