The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Richard Wiseman; Caroline Watt; Leanne ten Brinke; Stephen Porter; Sara-Louise Couper; Calum Rankin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040259

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Richard Wiseman,

Affiliation School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
⨯
Caroline Watt ,

* E-mail: caroline.watt@ed.ac.uk

Affiliation Psychology Department, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
⨯
Leanne ten Brinke,

Affiliation Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Canada
⨯
Stephen Porter,

Affiliation Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Canada
⨯
Sara-Louise Couper,

Affiliation Psychology Department, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
⨯
Calum Rankin

Affiliation Psychology Department, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
⨯

The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Richard Wiseman,
Caroline Watt,
Leanne ten Brinke,
Stephen Porter,
Sara-Louise Couper,
Calum Rankin

Published: July 11, 2012
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040259

Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

"Dissapeared" feedback

Posted by Reg_Connolly on 18 Jul 2012 at 19:55 GMT

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I am sure there is perfectly rational explanation for this...

...however I am curious…

…this morning (18 July 2012) there were 8 comments which were critical of the scientific diligence demonstrated in the work “The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming” by Dr Wiseman et al.

Yet, this evening just 5 comments remain.

Could PLosONE please clarify?

Competing interests declared: NLP Trainer who has already commented on this research paper (see 14 July comment)

RE: "Dissapeared" feedback

PLOS_ONE_Group replied to Reg_Connolly on 19 Jul 2012 at 10:22 GMT

We have removed some comments that we felt contravened our guidelines for 'good practice'. More details can be found here: http://www.plosone.org/st...

We welcome all discourse that relates to the content of the paper and adheres to our practice guidelines.

best,
PLoS ONE

No competing interests declared.

Subject Areas
?

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.
We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Eye movements
Is the Subject Area "Eye movements" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Deception
Is the Subject Area "Deception" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Neurolinguistics
Is the Subject Area "Neurolinguistics" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Experimental psychology
Is the Subject Area "Experimental psychology" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Behavior
Is the Subject Area "Behavior" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Video recording
Is the Subject Area "Video recording" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Psychology
Is the Subject Area "Psychology" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Vision
Is the Subject Area "Vision" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.

The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming

The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Reader Comments

Post Your Discussion Comment

Why should this posting be reviewed?

Thank You!

"Dissapeared" feedback

Posted by Reg_Connolly on 18 Jul 2012 at 19:55 GMT

RE: "Dissapeared" feedback

PLOS_ONE_Group replied to Reg_Connolly on 19 Jul 2012 at 10:22 GMT