PDF Summary:Read People Like a Book, by Patrick King

Wouldn’t it be helpful to be able to take one look at someone and know instantly what they’re thinking, what they want, and what sort of person they are? In Read People Like a Book, social interactions specialist Patrick King argues that you can come close to doing that by learning how to interpret peoples’ speech, behavior, and body language, and by using psychological principles to glean insights into their motivations and personalities. This ability allows you to more effectively navigate relationships, deal with difficult personalities, get what you want from others—and spot a liar.

In this guide, we’ll outline King’s advice on what to look for when reading other people, taking into consideration factors like situational context, your own biases, and the different drives and patterns of thinking that nonverbal communication often reflects. Along the way, we’ll examine advice from other experts on how to read people, as well as additional theories explaining these techniques.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: A possible reason for the instinctual human desire to protect and defend our positive self-image may lie in the evolution of our social brains. As addressed in Robin Dunbar's How Many Friends Does One Person Need?, self-perception plays a significant role in our social interactions. We form social hierarchies based on how we perceive ourselves and others, and this affects our survival and reproductive success. Building and maintaining a favorable image can lead to greater social status and acceptance—crucial components of human survival in our evolutionary past.)

Personality

King writes that another important factor that drives behavior is personality, which he defines as a consistent pattern of behavior and thinking over time. Psychologists generally measure personality as a collection of spectrums with character extremes on each end, such as extroversion versus introversion, or a measure of how neurotic you are (very versus not at all).

To judge a person’s personality, think about how they usually react to events or triggers. When you can identify a person’s typical response, you can predict how they’ll likely react to any specific situation. This can help you better engage and interact with them. For example, you’ll be better able to manage conflict or disagreement: If you’re speaking to someone with a rational temperament, you might emphasize the logic of your argument, whereas if you’re speaking to someone with an idealist temperament, you might emphasize your argument’s humaneness.

(Shortform note: Adapting to others' personalities as King suggests might lead to unintended dynamics. For example, people may start behaving in unnatural ways to please each other, glossing over genuine disagreements. In The Laws of Human Nature, Robert Greene warns against this kind of chameleon-like personality adaptation, arguing that authenticity builds stronger relationships, and warning that you must balance adjustment with authenticity or the relationship you create won’t last the test of time, as you won’t be able to continue it based on contrived interactions.)

King mentions another benefit to becoming adept in reading personalities: People who can read others well are often seen as more likable, intelligent, and even attractive. This is because if you can adjust your behavior according to the psychological or emotional needs of the other person, they’ll feel you empathize with them and understand their way of thinking.

(Shortform note: If you’re able to read personalities well, you likely have high emotional intelligence. Coined by psychologist Daniel Goleman and discussed in his book of the same name, the term refers to the ability to understand, use, and manage our emotions in positive ways to relieve stress, communicate effectively, empathize with others, overcome challenges, and defuse conflict. It involves not only recognizing your own emotional state but also the emotional states of others—which is a key piece of recognizing personalities per King’s advice. Goleman asserts that those who exhibit emotional intelligence tend to be more likable and attractive, and are perceived as more intelligent, which aligns with King's theory.)

How to Read Nonverbal Cues

Now that we’ve reviewed some of the factors underpinning behavior, we’ll look at some specific ways a person’s behavior may indicate their inner mind. We’ll examine in particular how this happens through nonverbal communication—what we say using our bodies, not our words.

King writes that we communicate more information nonverbally than verbally, and these messages often more accurately reflect our thoughts and feelings than our words do. This is because nonverbal communication is how the primitive side of our brain expresses its emotions, and that side of our brain can’t lie—unlike the more developed, rational side. Thus, we may say one thing with the words our rational brain chooses, but we may say something different with our posture, facial expressions, and so on.

He therefore argues that to effectively read someone—to know when they’re lying, holding something back, or trying to hide an emotion—you must learn to read their nonverbal cues: their facial expressions, body language, appearance, and manner of speaking.

(Shortform note: In The Laws of Human Nature, Robert Greene echoes King’s assertion that we communicate more information nonverbally than verbally—even though, he adds, people tend to pay more attention to verbal communication. Greene writes that 65% of our communication is nonverbal, but we typically read only around 5% of those cues. He suggests that the best way to read a person’s nonverbal messages is to mimic what they’re physically doing—for example, if someone is tensing their neck, tense yours, as well. Greene argues that this technique can give you a window into their true feelings in a more effective way than merely observing can.)

Facial Expressions

King writes you can glean a lot of information from a person’s facial expressions—in particular, from their microexpressions: slight, brief facial expressions that a person makes as an automatic response to something. Because microexpressions are physiological, knee-jerk reactions to a stimulus, they’re hard to conceal or fake and are thus good indicators of a person’s true thoughts or feelings.

(Shortform note: Some experts contest the idea that facial expressions, including microexpressions, are accurate assessments of a person’s inner state. They note that facial movements vary too widely to be reliable indicators of emotions: Some people may smile in anger or grimace in delight at a bad joke. Furthermore, facial expressions vary widely across cultures—in some parts of the world, wide eyes are considered aggressive, not fearful.)

King cautions that it can be difficult to read a person’s microexpressions—because they happen so quickly, you may have to watch someone more closely than is appropriate for a typical social situation. Further, he cautions against reading too much into any microexpressions. An expression of stress may indicate nervousness or discomfort, rather than deceit.

(Shortform note: Other experts agree that overanalyzing microexpressions can strain social interactions. Psychotherapist Carl Rogers, who argues for genuine, empathetic listening to foster understanding, notes that scrutinizing others for microexpressions might make them feel uncomfortable or over-analyzed, disrupting the natural flow of conversation. In this way, the very act of trying to read others' expressions of stress or deceit could inadvertently create tension and mistrust. Thus, this principle could unintentionally damage rather than enhance interpersonal relations, and could, as King cautions, lead to misinterpretation.)

Body Language

King writes that you can also assess how people are truly feeling—despite what they’re saying—by watching their body language: how they move their arms, legs, shoulders, and so on, and how they hold their posture. He notes some specific behaviors you can look out for that are often reliable clues to a person’s true feelings:

Physical fight, flight, or freeze responses: Our responses to danger have remained the same over years of evolution, so we can use those tells to determine if someone feels like they’re in danger. Someone having a fight response might make threatening gestures, someone having a flight response might shift away from the threat (by leaning back from the person talking, for example), and someone having a freeze response might hold tight to something, like the edge of their desk.

(Shortform note: In his book The Body Keeps the Score, psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk notes that the fight, flight, and freeze responses are not the sole indicators of fear or threat perception. Emotional responses such as anxiety, depression, and withdrawal could also point toward a perceived threat. Van der Kolk explains that our emotional responses have evolved parallel to physical ones, providing additional signals for danger. Therefore, observing only physical behaviors might not give a full picture of someone's sense of danger.)

Self-soothing behaviors: King writes that self-soothing behaviors, like when someone rubs or touches their shoulders, legs, or fingers, indicate a person is nervous or stressed. The neck is a particularly vulnerable area of our bodies, and someone who feels threatened often covers or strokes it—for example, they might fidget with a necktie or necklace, or squeeze the top of their neck. They might also exhibit “ventilating” behaviors like moving their hair off their shoulders or moving their collar away from their neck, as if they’re trying to “cool off” stress.

Deceitful behaviors: When people are lying, they may move nervously or fidget, indicating they feel a conflict between their internal reality and their external claims. They may lift their shoulders while saying they’re telling the truth, or they may scratch their nose, move their head to the side, or avoid eye contact.

Confidence-projecting behaviors: People who are confident often make themselves appear big: They might make large gestures and leave their torsos (the most vulnerable part of the body) exposed to signal they’re not afraid of being attacked. A person feeling a lack of confidence will do the opposite—they’ll hunch their shoulders or sit back to be less visible.

Mirroring behaviors: We mirror other people when we like and feel connected to them, and we avoid mirroring them when we dislike them. You can assess how someone feels about you by seeing if they’re adopting your posture, gestures, voice speed, or other quirks of behavior.

The Origins of Body Language

In Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman suggests that a key reason body language is so communicative of our inner state of mind might be evolutionary: Before the development of language, our ancestors relied on nonverbal cues to gauge threats and potential alliances.

These instincts are now hardwired into our brains and influence us throughout our days. When someone feels threatened, self-soothing behaviors can provide a temporary sense of relief. Similarly, confidence-projecting or mirroring behaviors can be seen as survival strategies, aiming to display dominance or build rapport, respectively. This evolutionary perspective sheds light on why our body language often aligns with our emotions despite our efforts to disguise them.

These instincts also explain deceitful behaviors: Because our brains are hardwired to match our movements to our thoughts and feelings, we experience discomfort when we try to disrupt that natural process, and instead try to make our bodies convey a message our brains don’t believe.

Appearance

King notes that people’s clothes are often good indicators of personality because people dress to purposefully communicate things about themselves. All you have to do, then, is take in the information they’re putting out there.

(Shortform note: Psychologists call this the psychology of dress—the study of how clothing reflects a person's inner life and how they think about themselves: their status, mood, goals, and so on.)

Pay attention to how much effort someone has put into their appearance. If it looks like they haven’t tried hard, they may be depressed or have low self-esteem. Conversely, if they’ve put a lot of effort into their appearance, they may be confident or eager for you to think well of them.

Note if someone’s clothes are unsuited to the current situation. This may indicate something about how the wearer perceives themselves and wants others to perceive them. For instance, if someone shows up to a dive bar wearing high-heels and cashmere, they might perceive themselves and want others to perceive them as extremely classy and sophisticated (and possibly above going to dive bars).

(Shortform note: Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Blink, talks about “thin-slicing,” or making quick judgments based on limited information, and he agrees with King that choices in clothing can give significant clues to a person’s identity and intent. Gladwell supports this notion with a variety of case studies suggesting that even small details, like someone choosing to wear high-heels and cashmere to a dive bar, can reveal meaningful insights about how they perceive themselves and how they want others to view them. Gladwell encourages us to trust these instant assessments, as they often lead to a greater understanding of people's character.)

Manner of Speaking

King also writes that the way a person uses words can tell you a lot about their personality. For example, someone with a negative or angry outlook might use strong or harsh language to talk about relatively minor incidents (for instance, saying they “absolutely hate it” when the train is late). Or, someone who’s eager to be perceived as intelligent might use technical jargon when they don’t have to.

(Shortform note: Robert Cialdini, in his book Influence, extends King's take on what language use signifies about a person. He proposes the ‘principle of consistency’—the idea that once people make a verbal statement (especially one that implies a certain personality trait or stance), they strive to act consistently with it. If someone says they “absolutely hate” late trains, they're not just revealing their personality—they're committing to a consistent negative stance on lateness in general. In this way, language use doesn't just reveal—it also guides behavior.)

How to Detect Lies

King writes that one of the main reasons people want to learn to read others is to detect when they’re being lied to. This is an understandable concern—nobody wants to be tricked, and a person who can detect lies has an advantage when negotiating or otherwise interacting with people.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to detect lies. The nonverbal cues discussed above that we often hope will reveal deceit can be hard to read. Different people have different indicators because they react uniquely to the uncomfortable feeling of lying—one person might fidget while another frowns more than usual.

Furthermore, liars are often aware of how nonverbal cues can be read and will often consciously avoid making mistakes that would give them away. If they know averting their eyes conveys deceit, for example, they’ll make sure not to do that.

(Shortform note: Former FBI counterintelligence officer Joe Navarro agrees with King's assertion that detecting lies is difficult, but offers another reason for it beyond the variability of nonverbal cues: We tend to believe those we like, and we look for signs of deception less critically when we want to believe what we're hearing. Thus, even if someone doesn't manage to hide their deceit indicators perfectly, we might overlook them due to our own subjectivity. This tendency has the potential to lessen the advantages of knowing what signs of deceit to look for.)

King writes that the best way to unearth a lie is not to look for individual, specific indicators, but instead, to have a conversation with the other person and then evaluate it holistically. Then:

• Try to make them mess up their story.
• Look for unnatural behaviors.
• Watch for emotions that don’t match the situation.

Make Them Mess Up Their Story

King writes that the best way you can get another person to reveal faults in their story is to stress their brain. Lying is mentally taxing, and if a liar is forced to devote more mental resources to their lie than they had planned, they’re more likely to slip up.

The best way to do this is to get them talking. The more they talk, the more opportunities they’ll have to say conflicting facts or to get details wrong. Start by asking open-ended questions to get the conversation flowing. Keep your tone casual so they don’t feel they’re being interrogated, which would cause them to clam up or get defensive. Your goal in the beginning of the conversation is to encourage them to reveal as much as possible.

(Shortform note: Psychologist Paul Ekman, known for his work on deception research, agrees with King's principle that intensifying cognitive load can help reveal lies. In Telling Lies, Ekman suggests an alternative reason for its effectiveness: When people lie, they commonly experience heightened stress and fear of detection, which trigger certain physical and verbal cues. Thus, while King focuses on the mental effort of maintaining a lie, Ekman brings attention to the emotional load. Consequently, the reason stressing a liar's brain may lead them to trip up might not only be because of their cognitive resources but also their emotional stability.)

King says that while getting them to talk, you should limit how much you contribute to the conversation. In particular, don’t reveal what you know about their lie. If they don’t know what you know, you’ll have an advantage, as they won’t be able to judge what information to hold back or adjust to fit the narrative.

(Shortform note: Steven Pinker disagrees with King's theory, arguing that transparency can bolster honesty. In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Pinker claims that revealing what we know may lead to more honest conversations. The person who lied would be faced with evidence of their dishonesty, potentially motivating them to come clean. Tools like transparency, not mystery, encourage honesty, according to Pinker. So, consider whether keeping knowledge concealed as King advises is the best method in every situation, or whether the truthful exposure Pinker champions might be more appropriate.)

As the conversation progresses, switch to specific questions about details of their story. Your goal here is to throw them off-balance. King writes that liars usually have rehearsed their tale but are unprepared to answer questions about things they haven’t thought through yet, which gives you an opening to poke holes in their story.

You can further tax their brains by repeating a part of their story slightly incorrectly, to see if they correct you—if you do this several times, they may not be able to keep track of their small details.

(Shortform note: Pamela Meyer, author of Liespotting, disagrees with this approach, arguing that probing too intensely for story details can actually provoke people to become better liars. She posits that too many specifics may lead the person to craft a more believable tale, as they respond to your ‘test’ questions. Instead, Meyer advocates for observing the body language and signs of discomfort, claiming nonverbal cues are more reliable indicators of deception than the consistency of a story. In essence, while King suggests detailed questioning, Meyer cautions that it might make more effective liars instead.)

Look for Unnatural Behavior

When looking for deceit, King advises you not to fixate on specific, isolated actions like fidgeting or avoiding eye contact. Individual indicators might mislead you because a person who feels nervous (as they might if they sense you’re questioning them) may do things that show discomfort but don’t necessarily mean deceit.

Instead, watch for overall stiff or awkward behavior, especially at times when the conversation shifts tone or direction—and particularly around moments where the other person might need to make up details of a story. Do they start acting nervous at those points? Do they change from acting relaxed and friendly to suddenly being serious and blunt, or vice versa?

Notice, too, if they give you evasive answers to your questions, like if they ask a question back to you or remark on how strange your question is.

Further, watch for whether they seem to be making up details as they go—King writes that people who are telling the truth are more likely to say, “I don’t know,” if they’re missing some details of their story, but liars are more likely to make up details to fill in the missing spots.

Look for Clusters of Behavior

In What Every Body Is Saying, Joe Navarro echoes King’s principle, suggesting that it's not isolated actions but clusters of behavior—such as stiffness, awkward movements, and rapid changes in mood—that can be telltale signs of deceit. He explains that when people lie, they're grappling with nerves, guilt, or fear of being caught. This emotional struggle usually results in a bundle of nonverbal signals like sudden stiffness or irregular movements.

Similarly, Navarro notes that evasive responses and the inability to say "I don't know" often indicate a person is fabricating details because liars want their stories to seem convincing and complete, which makes them invent details even when unsure. Thus, he corroborates King’s view that the less likely someone is to say ''I don't know,'' the more likely they are to be lying.

Watch for Inappropriate Emotional Responses

King writes that telling a lie is an inherently emotional experience (unless the liar is a psychopath). People are usually uncomfortable with it—although he warns that some may get a thrill out of it.

(Shortform note: King doesn’t define what makes a person a psychopath, but psychologists define it as a person who lacks empathy and other typical emotional responses. Such people will not react to lying emotionally, and thus, as King indicates, their deceit will be harder to identify. The other abnormal emotional reaction King mentions is getting a thrill out of lying. Psychologists refer to this as “duper’s delight,” and credit it to the rush of feeling smarter or craftier than others.)

In either case, liars typically have trouble staying true to fake facts while also behaving toward those facts with appropriate emotions:

• They might be overly matter-of-fact when telling a story that involves feelings like fear, surprise, or happiness. For example, a person might say she had spent the day visiting her elderly parents but not convey the angst and irritation she normally feels when visiting them.
• Or, they might be unreasonably angry—liars often put on a show of anger (“What are you trying to say?”) to deflect an inquiry.

(Shortform note: Charles Darwin explores the connection between lying and emotions in The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. He theorizes that lying triggers strong emotions because it goes against human nature. The discomfort you feel is a result of wrestling with the unnatural act of conveying false information—which becomes even more heightened if you fear getting caught. So, the emotional discomfort people naturally feel when lying may complicate any efforts to bolster their stories with convincing emotional expressions.)