There is a heat map for the cereal aisle, the ad, the landing page, and your résumé. Entire professions test, measure, and upgrade to move a number two percent. The interview room—where we decide what is true—still runs on a method whose first famous case produced a false confession.

Grocery stores have spent fifty years using behavioral research to change how you shop — down to the scent of the bread and the height of the cereal. Meanwhile, the way we interview and investigate hasn't meaningfully changed since 1955. If a soda bottle can be upgraded with science, why not the interview?

I get this question in almost every class: what's with all the goats? It started as a way to say thank you — cartoon GOAT stickers and a handwritten note for detectives who did great work. It ended up teaching me something about science-based interviewing. One good opening question once got 14 minutes of lies from a man now serving 30 years for murder. Every one of those lies was information. Statements are evidence. Here's why that changes how you interview — and how you lea

Science-Based Interviewing gives companies a better way to conduct internal investigations, workplace investigation interviews, and corporate security interviews. Instead of relying on accusatory tactics, pseudoscientific lie detection, or premature evidence disclosure, investigators can gather reliable information, protect statements from contamination, test accounts against evidence, and make better decisions.

Science-Based Interviewing represents a decisive shift away from confession-driven interrogation toward information-driven investigations. Grounded in psychological science, SBI prioritizes higher-quality information, ethical evidence handling, and reduced investigative risk—without sacrificing confessions. As states move away from outdated accusatorial practices, science-based methods offer a more reliable, defensible, & future-ready approach for public and private sector in

AI in criminal investigations is only as good as the interviews feeding it. Science-based interviewing produces detailed, corroborable accounts an algorithm can actually use — accusatorial methods contaminate the dataset before analysis ever begins.