Reading Deviations from Baseline
There is no Pinocchio's nose — watch the hands, and watch for change.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 3
- Confidence
- 86%
Konnikova rejects the idea of a universal tell — there is no Pinocchio's nose, no facial feature that betrays a lie every time, because people blush and look uncomfortable for many different reasons. Real information comes from watching an individual over time to learn their baseline, then noticing deviations from it. She points to the hands rather than the face: we all know to keep a poker face, but we forget our gestures, and hands reveal fluidity, strength, pulse, and sweat. Even then a deviation is only a clue — you cannot be sure what it meant until the outcome shows you.
Origin
Konnikova developed this reading approach through live poker experience and the research behind her book The Biggest Bluff, whose chapter on tells details what she looks for.
Core principles
- 01There is no universal tell — no single feature that changes every time someone lies.
- 02Information lives in deviations from a person's own baseline behaviour, observed over time.
- 03The hands leak more than the face, because people guard their faces and forget their gestures.
- 04Even a deviation is ambiguous until you see the outcome that reveals what it meant.
How to run it
- 1
Abandon the universal tell
Accept that no single cue reliably signals lying or any state across people; each person is different.
Watch out Assuming you can universally tell when someone is lying is exactly the mistake to avoid.
- 2
Establish the baseline
Watch a person over time to learn how they normally sit, look, and speak before you read anything into their behaviour.
- 3
Watch the hands for deviations
Look for sudden departures from baseline, focusing on the hands — the fluidity and strength of how they handle chips and cards.
Pro tip Hands leak pulse, sweat, and skin conductance because people guard their faces but forget their gestures.
Watch out A deviation alone is ambiguous — do not conclude what it means until the outcome reveals it.
In the wild
Konnikova describes noticing after a full day at the same table how a person normally sits, looks and speaks, so that when they suddenly deviate from that pattern she knows that is where the information is.
→ Deviation from an established baseline, not any fixed cue, becomes the signal worth reading.
Common mistakes
Believing in a universal lie tell
Trusting that a facial feature reliably reveals lying ignores that people blush and look uncomfortable for many different reasons.
Watching the face instead of the hands
People consciously control their faces, so the guarded face reveals little while the forgotten hands leak far more information.
Is it for you?
Best for
Negotiators, interviewers, and anyone reading intent in face-to-face high-stakes interaction.
Not ideal for
Remote or online settings where you cannot observe a person's physical baseline over time.
From the transcript
“that's what i should be paying attention to to the deviations to the changes from baseline behavior that's where the information is”
“it's not the face all of our data show that you should be looking at the hands that the hands actually give up a lot…”
From the episode
Maria Konnikova: Poker and the Psychology of Uncertainty
Maria Konnikova