Michelle: Alright Mark, pop quiz. The book is called You Can Read Anyone. What's the one person you wish you could read, but absolutely can't? Mark: Oh, that's easy. My cat. I'm pretty sure he's plotting my demise, but his poker face is impenetrable. Is there a chapter on feline masterminds? Michelle: Haha, maybe in the sequel! But today we're diving into the human version: "You Can Read Anyone" by David J. Lieberman, a Ph.D. and psychotherapist. Mark: A psychotherapist, okay. So this isn't just pop-psychology fluff? Michelle: Far from it. This is a guy whose techniques are used by the FBI and who has gone head-to-head with polygraph examiners on live TV and held his own. The book itself has a bit of a cult following but also gets some heat for being... let's say, too direct. Mark: Ooh, controversy. I'm in. So where do we start? Do I learn a secret handshake to know if someone's lying?

Michelle: You're not far off! The book’s initial appeal is exactly that. It promises these incredibly fast, almost surgical techniques to figure out what someone is thinking in five minutes or less. No secret handshake, but specific psychological tells. Mark: Okay, I'm intrigued. Give me an example. How does this work in the wild? Michelle: Let's take a business negotiation. You're trying to close a deal, and you need to know if the person across the table is being honest and if they're truly confident in their position. Lieberman says to ignore the generic body language stuff, like crossed arms. Mark: Right, because that could just mean the room is cold. Michelle: Exactly. Instead, he suggests focusing on verbal and non-verbal inconsistencies. For instance, you ask them a direct question about a potential weakness in their proposal. A confident person might acknowledge it and explain how they'll mitigate it. But someone who's hiding something might get defensive, change the subject, or use what he calls 'non-contracted denial.' Mark: What in the world is 'non-contracted denial'? Michelle: It's subtle but powerful. Instead of saying "I didn't," they'll say "I did not." Instead of "I can't," they say "I cannot." It's a formal distancing language that often pops up when someone is being deceptive because they're consciously constructing a sentence rather than speaking naturally. Mark: Whoa. That's specific. So you're listening for grammar, basically? Michelle: You're listening for the unnatural. Another one is watching for superfluous gestures. A person who is genuinely confident tends to be still. Their movements are purposeful. Someone faking confidence might overcompensate with big, flashy hand gestures or fidgeting, what Lieberman calls 'squeezing signs'—like they're trying to squeeze the nervous energy out. Mark: I can see how that would be useful. In a high-stakes situation, you're looking for these little cracks in the facade. Michelle: Precisely. The book is full of these. It gives you a checklist of things to look for to gauge interest on a date, honesty in a negotiation, or even the swayability of a juror. It feels like a superpower. Mark: Okay, but here's my skeptical side kicking in. What if the person is just having a bad day? Or they're naturally an anxious person? Some of the reader reviews I saw online really hit on this, saying the book can feel a bit too black-and-white, almost like a simple formula for a very complex thing—a human being. Michelle: That is the single most important critique of this book, and it's a completely valid one. It's why many in the psychology field are cautious about these kinds of manuals. People are messy. Context is everything. Mark: So is the book just a collection of cool but unreliable party tricks? Michelle: Well, that's the brilliant pivot the book makes about a third of the way through. Lieberman essentially says, 'Okay, you've learned the quick-and-dirty tricks. Now, let's talk about the real engine room of human behavior.' He argues that to truly read anyone, you have to stop looking at the surface-level tells and start understanding the deep, predictable psychological forces that compel us to act the way we do.

Mark: Okay, now that sounds more like something a psychotherapist would say. A 'psychological engine.' What does that even mean? Michelle: It's the core of his whole system, which he calls S.N.A.P.—a Segmented, Neuro-psychological Assessment Profile. He makes a bold claim: this is not about body language or personality types. He says personality is fluid; we wear different masks at work, at home, with friends. The real key is understanding the universal, unchanging forces of human nature. Mark: And what are those forces? Michelle: The master component, the sun around which everything else orbits, is self-esteem. And this is where he makes a crucial distinction that most of us get wrong. He separates self-esteem from ego. Mark: I thought they were kind of the same thing. A big ego means you have high self-esteem, right? Michelle: According to Lieberman, it's the exact opposite. He says self-esteem and ego are inversely related. True, healthy self-esteem is the quiet, internal reputation we have with ourselves. It's a sense of worth that isn't dependent on outside validation. The ego, on the other hand, is our external mask. It's the part of us that craves approval, fears judgment, and defends our self-image at all costs. Mark: So, the ego is like this over-caffeinated, insecure bodyguard for our self-esteem? If our self-esteem is solid, the bodyguard is chill. If it's shaky, the bodyguard tackles anyone who looks at it funny. Michelle: That is a perfect analogy! I love that. And when that bodyguard gets triggered, our behavior becomes, as Lieberman puts it, 'forced.' We're no longer acting out of free will; we're acting out of a pre-programmed need to protect our fragile sense of self. Mark: That sounds a little deterministic. 'Forced' choices? Michelle: Let me give you one of his examples. A man buys a very expensive suit. If a colleague says, "Wow, great suit," he'll just say, "Thanks." His ego is fine. But if the colleague says, "Wow, that's a ridiculously expensive suit," the man will immediately launch into a defense of its quality, its craftsmanship, its value. He is 'forced' into that defensive posture because the comment wasn't about the suit; it was a perceived attack on his judgment, and his ego-bodyguard went into high alert. Mark: I can see that. It's the difference between a comment and a criticism. The ego can't handle criticism. Michelle: It can't. And it gets darker. The ego's prime directive is to reduce cognitive dissonance—that uncomfortable feeling when our actions don't align with our beliefs. To do this, a person with low self-esteem will literally distort reality. He tells the story of a husband who cheats on his wife. To live with himself, he can't just admit he did a bad thing. That would shatter his self-image. Mark: So what does he do? Michelle: His mind unconsciously starts to find fault with his wife. He starts 'seeing' her as cold, or nagging, or undeserving of his loyalty. He's not just making excuses; his brain is actively rewriting his perception of her to retroactively justify his own terrible behavior. He needs her to be the villain so he can remain the hero of his own story. Mark: Wow, that's... chilling. The idea that we're basically lying to ourselves to feel okay is a lot to take in. So if this engine is so predictable, can you use it to spot real trouble before it happens?

Michelle: That's the final, and maybe most powerful, piece of the puzzle. The book builds to this one critical question: All things being equal, who is the person most likely to make a bad choice? To lie, to cheat, to sabotage a project, or to hurt someone? Mark: I'm guessing it's not the person with the weak handshake or the shifty eyes. Michelle: Not at all. The answer, according to Lieberman, is a simple but terrifying formula: Low Self-Esteem combined with High Interest. Mark: Low self-esteem and high interest. Break that down for me. Why is that combination so volatile? Michelle: Think about it. The 'high interest' part means the person is deeply, personally invested in the outcome. Their career, their reputation, their money, their relationship—it's on the line. The stakes are high for them. Mark: Okay, that makes sense. They care a lot. Michelle: But then you add the 'low self-esteem.' Because their sense of self-worth is fragile, they don't see a challenge as just a challenge; they see it as a threat to their very identity. A potential failure isn't just a bad outcome; it's proof that they are, as they've always feared, a failure as a person. And when that happens, their insecure ego-bodyguard doesn't just tackle you—it pulls out all the stops. Mark: So they'll do anything to avoid that feeling of failure. Lie, manipulate, throw others under the bus... Michelle: Anything. They become rigid, they can't take feedback, they see conspiracies everywhere, and they view everyone as a competitor. The book gives this fantastic, modern-day parable of an overzealous project manager. He's desperate for the project to succeed because his career depends on it—that's the high interest. But he's deeply insecure—low self-esteem. Mark: I think we've all worked with that person. Michelle: Right? So what does he do? He micromanages everyone. He publicly berates a junior employee for a tiny mistake. He rejects a brilliant idea from a senior developer because it wasn't his idea. He creates this toxic culture of fear, not because he's evil, but because his ego is so terrified of failure that it has to control everything and eliminate any perceived threat. In the end, the project fails, the best people quit, and his worst fears come true, all because of his own actions. Mark: That is frighteningly relatable. It explains so much about dysfunctional workplaces. But it brings up a huge question for me. How do you actually spot low self-esteem? It's not like people wear a sign. The arrogant, loud person might have it, but the quiet, mousy person might have it too. Michelle: That's the million-dollar question, and Lieberman gives a surprisingly simple, elegant answer. He says you can cut through all the noise—the arrogance, the false humility, the success, the failures—by looking at one thing. Mark: What is it? Michelle: How a person treats themselves.

Mark: How they treat themselves? Not how they treat others? Michelle: He says it's both, but it starts with the self. Someone with genuine, high self-esteem invests in their own long-term well-being. They take care of their health, they pursue meaningful goals, they forgive themselves for mistakes. They are, in essence, kind to their future self. And because they feel secure internally, they can be genuinely kind and generous to others. Their cup is full, so they have something to give. Mark: And someone with low self-esteem? Michelle: Their behavior is often self-sabotaging. They might neglect their health, stay in toxic relationships, or chase short-term validation at the expense of long-term happiness. They're often unkind to themselves, and that unkindness spills out. They might tear others down to feel taller, or they might be a doormat, unable to set boundaries because they don't feel they deserve respect. The outward behavior can look very different—arrogant or passive—but the root cause is the same: a fundamental lack of self-worth. Mark: So it's not about being a mind-reader, but a better pattern-recognizer of human vulnerability and how people relate to themselves. Michelle: Exactly. The book starts with the promise of a superpower—reading other people—but it ends with a much more profound insight. To understand anyone, you first have to understand the universal human struggle for self-worth. The techniques are just the entry point; the real wisdom is in recognizing the deep, often hidden, engine of the ego and its desperate need to feel okay. Mark: It really makes you think, doesn't it? It reframes so many interactions. That difficult boss or that overly critical family member... maybe it's not about you at all. It's about their own internal battle. Michelle: It's a powerful lens to look through. And it leads to a pretty deep question for all of us to consider: what patterns have you noticed in your own life, or in the people around you? We'd love to hear your thoughts on this one. It’s a book that, despite its controversies, definitely gets you thinking. Mark: This is Aibrary, signing off.