{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01874414245548266, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.716981132075472, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why Does Intimate Deception Work?

This chapter considers why deceivers often succeed in duping their intimates. Judges frequently blame deceived intimates for having been fooled, but detecting intimate deception can be very difficult. First, almost all of us have much less ability to spot deception than we may like to imagine. Second, powerful social norms discourage the investigation of intimates. Third, it is often difficult or impossible to mount an investigation without the investigation itself jeopardizing or ending the relationship because the investigated person finds out about it. Practical realities often preclude reconnaissance without the subject’s knowledge. Moreover, the law prohibits—for legitimate and important reasons—many forms of research into someone else’s life without the subject’s consent. It is deeply ironic for courts to fault plaintiffs for not swiftly uncovering intimate deception when laws protecting privacy and security make investigating a potentially deceptive intimate without that intimate’s consent much more difficult.