> Playing those games enough makes you realize how idiosyncratic lying can be.
In my view this is just one more error springing from the root error of turning "a jury of your peers" into "a jury of random strangers". One point of being judged by a jury of your peers is that they are familiar with the types of things you're likely to do.
But another is that your peers are familiar with the ways in which you're likely to react to things.
People are practiced at telling lies that their peers believe. Random strangers are better at being skeptical because they are not empathetic about the excuses that are necessary to smooth out an explanation.
No, I think everyone is probably equally terrible at detecting lies. Except for the few people who have actually been tested and shown to be good at it. Any other narrative is just a story - we're all pretty bad at guessing each others intentions.
In my view this is just one more error springing from the root error of turning "a jury of your peers" into "a jury of random strangers". One point of being judged by a jury of your peers is that they are familiar with the types of things you're likely to do.
But another is that your peers are familiar with the ways in which you're likely to react to things.