I don't think you know what I'm talking about. In the culture of my field loyalty isn't as valued as a trait as independence, which is sort of the opposite trait. The team doesn't come first. So I've never seen covering up to protect the team. But I've seen covering up for someone else because it would reflect badly on your professional reputation, because you share the offender's political beliefs (e.g., amateur labor rights supporters get a free pass for sexual misconduct at work!), or because it gives you leverage later, among other things.

Bingley, I will try to answer completely, but there was much training I did which was provided by the government that is not available outside the government. Most of this training is centered on communications, for all purposes.

Richard Mullender teaches in the UK. He is the former chief trainer for the London Metropolitan Police (New Scotland Yard) National Hostage and Crisis Unit. He is a fantastic teacher. He focuses on listening, which is a skill few people seem to really have. He does run open courses. Mullenders.org

The Institute for Analytic Interviewing is a great one week course, but specializes in law enforcement interviewing. I will say that what they teach is useful to anyone who deals with people, in any situation or capacity. iainterviewing.com

Rory Miller teaches some very practical courses on conflict and violence, and the individual level. His Conflict Communications is great, and he can carry it all the way to practical fighting. He has some extensive experience doing this kind of work, and he studies the science and teaches well. Chirontraining.com

Dr. David Matsumoto has some on line training in recognizing facial expressions and emotions. This is very necessary if you are worried about detecting deception or early detection of threats. He worked with Dr. Paul Ekman and has built on Edman's work. humintell.com

Randy Markoz does not have a web site, and he is working for another company, but he runs a course that includes understanding personality (based on the Myers-Briggs personality inventory) and how that affects communications. I find this very useful in dealing with people as it informs you how they see, interpret and interact with the world. This goes a long way in helping you anticipate their actions and how to communicate more effectively with them. I would have to facilitate a link up with him.

Books:

Personality

Gifts Differing

Please Understand Me

Understanding personality is a big help in assessing people and their intentions. It can also help in assessing people for the best fit in a job or task. It also helps you understand the best way to communicate with them. You start by understanding your own personality, then you can begin to see it in others.

Emotions Revealed

Telling Lies

Understanding emotions is critical to understanding people, and detecting deception. Detecting deception is generally poorly understood by people. You are not detecting lies, you are detecting a difference between the words someone is using and their actual emotional responses. Matsumoto's training helps you identify the emotional responses.

Conflict Communication

Facing Violence

Meditations on Violence

Rory Miller's books are very well written and practical. They are not long, and not written for an academic audience. He also has videos on his training.

If anyone is looking for more resources related to this subject just let me know.

I´ll admit that I did not understand that properly.
Learning to read body language and voice will still help you.

Max, body language and voice stress are very useful. They do require training in order to apply them effectively. There is a common misconception that a certain body movement always means a particular thing, this is not true. Context and the individual's baseline habits are important to interpret them correctly. To be effective with voice stress, it really requires technology to detect the subtle aspects.

With training, language, body language and facial expressions are very reliable. However, a subject's baseline should still be established before it is highly effective.

With all of these tools, the amount of time you have to observe the subject is important. The longer you can observe, the more accurate your assessment will be.

One thing to always keep in mind is that communication and assessment is almost always a two way street. Many (most?) of us have little understanding of how we might be "understood" or perceived by others.

Years ago I was in a job where I occaisionaly but infrequently had to interview job candidates. Since my training and background was mostly in science and technical areas, my employer sent me to a class on interviewing. One of the things we did was to conduct mock interviews which were video taped. It was really fascinating and revealing to see my own mannerisms, body language, and facial expressions. We then talked about how these might be perceived and misinterpreted by others.

An example of what I've learned about myself over the years is that when I'm deep in thought, my face sometimes appears as if I'm angry or upset (when I'm not, I'm just thinking). In some situations that might be frightening to someone, and they react accordingly.

People will react according to what they perceive in us. Always keep in mind that what you see (negative or positive) in another person might be to some extent a reflection of how they are reading us. You should try to know yourself before trying to know others.

AKSAR, as usual you bring up very important and constructive points. How we present is important in communications. When you are learning, it is usually best to study yourself before you study others. If you can't see it in yourself, you are unlikely to see it in others.

Max, upon rereading my post, I realized it came across harsher than I intended. I was just terse and in a hurry.

I'm beginning to think that perhaps my experience is not typical. I interview people as a part of my job, too. In my field some people get very good coaching, and so the answers we get and the body language we see are sometimes just a product of having a lot of resources. I don't mean to imply that you can "beat the game," but it is possible to make your self-presentation very, very polished. When the majority of people have the same degree of polish, the game changes.

The interview process can be quite grueling and long -- months, with days where the interviewee is basically constantly observed from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to bed. People do falter under such stress, and perhaps you can construe those moments as revealing of their true self. You also check with people who know them. But, after more than a decade, I'm beginning to feel the information we get is not all that useful. People and careers are quite complex, and you can't always predict problems over the long term. Even this rigorous process cannot eliminate people who would do bad stuff later or even right away.

But I wouldn't be surprised that there is a science to all of this that I do not understand as a mere employee. Recently I heard a CIA psychologist talk about people who leak secrets. (They study this sort of stuff, eh?) She says that people tend to leak or commit such acts of betrayal when they're in crisis (in other areas of life). I have noticed a similar pattern -- crisis in personal life can lead to misconduct at work. So maybe there is something to it, though a part of me thinks, hey, that sounds like common sense.

I don't know how any of this would apply to a survival situation. I mean, if you're in a survival situation, especially in a long-term one as envisioned by the video in the OP, you're in crisis. Everybody is in crisis. So, what, trust no one? At the end, I continue to feel that character can be known only in the long term. You can design whatever process you want for admitting people into your "survival group," but I am guessing that 50% (or more!) of that process will reflect you and the social dynamics in the existing group. I'd prefer a survival group with people you have known for a long time, and prepare for their flaws.

Thanks for the recommendations, Montanero. I have read Rory Miller's work. I think his stuff is really good for short term interactions. I'll check out the other stuff.

Bingley, I did not take any offense on that.


The book "Please understand me" (I´ll second Montanero´s recommendation) may give you hints on this topic. Different personalities perceive a crisis in different ways. Some personalities may need to be monitored more closely, some may actually thrive. Assign tasks accordingly for best results.


I think that basic traits can be observed fairly quickly. A more accurate assessment takes time.


That is not neccessarily a bad thing. An applicant needs to fit into the group if things are supposed to run smoothly.
It should not be forgotten that the interview process is mutual. The applicant may decide that he or she does not want to join the group after the admission process.


That´s a wise choice. Teams need to form and a group develops the social dynamics over time. It´s best when most of the friction is resolved ahead of a crisis.