You've heard of your IQ, your general intelligence, but what's your Psy-Q? How much do you know about what makes you tick, and how good are you at predicting other people's behavior or even your own? And how much of what you think you know about psychology is wrong? Let's find out by counting down the top myths of psychology.
Čuli ste za svoj IQ, vašu opštu inteligenciju, ali šta je Psi-Q? Koliko znate o tome šta vas pokreće i koliko ste dobri u predviđanju ponašanja drugih ljudi ili čak sopstvenog? Koliko je ono što mislite da znate o psihologiji pogrešno? Hajde da otkrijemo nabrojavanjem 10 najvećih mitova o psihologiji.
You've probably heard it said that when it comes to their psychology, it's almost as if men are from Mars and women are from Venus. But how different are men and women, really? To find out, let's start by looking at something on which men and women really do differ and plotting some psychological gender differences on the same scale. One thing men and women do really differ on is how far they can throw a ball. So if we look at the data for men here, we see what is called a normal distribution curve. A few men can throw a ball really far, a few men, not far at all, but most, a kind of average distance. And women share the same distribution as well, but actually, there's quite a big difference. In fact, the average man can throw a ball further than about 98 percent of all women.
Verovatno ste čuli da kada se radi o njihovoj psihologiji, da su muškarci sa Marsa, a žene sa Venere. Ali koliko su zaista muškarci i žene različiti? Da bismo to otkrili, počnimo da posmatramo nešto gde se muškarci i žene zaista razlikuju i da ocrtamo neke psihološke razlike među polovima na istom nivou. Jedna stvar gde se muškarci i žene zaista razlikuju je koliko daleko mogu da bace loptu. Ako ovde pogledamo podatke za muškarce, vidimo ono što se naziva normalnom krivom raspodele. Nekoliko muškaraca može da baci loptu dosta daleko, nekoliko njih nimalo, ali najviše muškaraca može prosečno. I žene dele istu podelu, ali zapravo tu postoji velika razlika. Zapravo, prosečan muškarac može da baci loptu dalje od oko 98% svih žena.
Now let's look at what some psychological gender differences look like on the same standardized scale. Any psychologist will tell you that men are better at spatial awareness than women -- things like map-reading, for example -- and it's true. But let's have a look at the size of this difference. It's tiny; the lines are so close together, they almost overlap. In fact, the average woman is better than 33 percent of all men, and of course, if that was 50 percent, then the two genders would be exactly equal. It's worth bearing in mind that this difference and the next one I'll show you are pretty much the biggest psychological gender differences ever discovered in psychology.
Hajde da sada vidimo kako neke psihološke razlike polova izgledaju na istom standardizovanom nivou. Svaki psiholog će vam reći da su muškarci bolji u prostornom snalaženju od žena - stvarima poput čitanja mapa na primer, što je tačno, ali hajde da pogledamo veličinu te razlike. Mala je. Linije su toliko blizu da se gotovo preklapaju. Zapravo, prosečna žena je bolja od 33% svih muškaraca, i naravno, kada bi to bilo 50%, onda bi dva roda bili jednaki. Bitno je imati na umu da su ova razlika i sledeća koju ću vam pokazati otprilike najveće psihološke rodne razlike koje su ikada otkrivene u psihologiji.
Here's the next one. Any psychologist will tell you that women are better with language and grammar than men. Here's performance on the standardized grammar test. There, the women. There go the men. Again, yes, women are better on average, but the lines are so close that 33 percent of men are better than the average woman. And again, if it was 50 percent, that would represent complete gender equality. So it's not really a case of Mars and Venus. It's more a case of, if anything, Mars and Snickers: basically the same, but one's maybe slightly nuttier than the other.
Evo sledeće. Svaki psiholog će vam reći da su žene bolje u jezicima i gramatici od muškaraca. Evo rezultatata standardizovanog testa gramatike. Ovde su žene. Ovde muškarci. Ponovo, žene su bolje u proseku, ali linije su toliko blizu da je 33% muškaraca bolje od prosečnih žena, i ponovo, da je 50% to bi predstavilo čitavu rodnu jednakost. Dakle, nisu baš kao Mars i Venera. Više su kao Mars i Snikers: u suštini su isti, ali u jedno ide malo više jaja.
When making a cake, do you prefer to use a recipe book with pictures? Yeah, a few people. Have a friend talk you through? Or have a go, making it up as you go along? Quite a few people there. OK, so if you said A, then this means that you're a visual learner, and you learn best when information is presented in a visual style. If you said B, it means you're an auditory learner, that you learn best when information is presented to you in an auditory format. And if you said C, it means that you're a kinesthetic learner, that you learn best when you get stuck in and do things with your hands.
Neću reći u koje. Sada smo se zagrejali. Hajde da vas psihoanaliziramo uz pomoć čuvenog testa Roršahovih mrlja. Verovatno vidite dva medveda ili dvoje ljudi ili nešto drugo. Ali šta mislite da oni rade? Podignite ruku ako mislite da se pozdravljaju. Ne mnogo ljudi. Dobro. Podignite ruku ako mislite da bacaju kosku jedan drugom. Dobro. Da li se možda svađaju? Samo nekoliko ljudi tamo. Dobro, ako mislite da se pozdravljaju ili bacaju kosku, onda to znači da ste prijateljski nastrojena osoba. Ako mislite da se svađaju,
Except, of course, as you've probably guessed, that it doesn't, because the whole thing is a complete myth. Learning styles are made up and are not supported by scientific evidence. We know this because in tightly controlled experimental studies when learners are given material to learn, either in their preferred style or an opposite style, it makes no difference at all to the amount of information they retain. And if you think about it for just a second, it's obvious that this has to be true. It's obvious that the best presentation format depends not on you, but on what you're trying to learn. Could you learn to drive a car, for example, just by listening to someone telling you what to do, with no kinesthetic experience? Could you solve simultaneous equations by talking them through in your head, without writing them down? Could you revise for your architecture exams using interpretive dance if you're a kinesthetic learner? No; what you need to do is match the material to be learned to the presentation format, not you.
onda ste malo nevaljala, agresivna osoba. Zapravo, da li ste ljubavnik ili borac. A šta kažete na ovo? Ovo nije za glasanje, pa na tri svi viknite šta vidite. Jedan, dva, tri. (Publika viče) Čuo sam hrčak. Ko je rekao hrčak? To je veoma zabrinjavajuće. Momak tamo je rekao hrčak. Trebalo bi da vidite neku vrstu dvonoge životinje ovde, i onda sliku u ogledalu iste ovde. Ako ne vidite, onda to znači da imate poteškoća sa procesuiranjem kompleksnih situacija gde se dešava dosta toga. Osim ako, naravno, to uopšte ne znači to. Test Roršahovih mrlja zapravo nije validan kada se radi o dijagnozi ljudske ličnosti i ne koriste ga moderni psiholozi. Zapravo, skorašnje istraživanje otkrilo je da kada pokušate da dijagnostikujete ljudske ličnosti koristeći test Roršahovih mrlja, otkriva se šizofrenija kod oko 1/6 očigledno sasvim normalnih učesnika. Ako ovde niste tako dobro prošli,
I know many of you are A-level students that will have recently gotten your GCSE results. And if you didn't quite get what you were hoping for, then you can't really blame your learning style. But one thing that you might want to think about blaming is your genes. So what this is all about is that a recent study at University College London found that 58 percent of the variation between different students and their GCSE results was down to genetic factors. That sounds like a very precise figure. So how can we tell? Well, when we want to unpack the relative contributions of genes and the environment, what we can do is a twin study. Identical twins share 100 percent of their environment and 100 percent of their genes, whereas nonidentical twins share 100 percent of their environment, but just like any brother and sister, share only 50 percent of their genes. So by comparing how similar GCSE results are in identical twins versus nonidentical twins and doing some clever maths, we can get an idea of how much variation in performance is due to the environment, and how much is due to genes. And it turns out that it's about 58 percent due to genes. This isn't to undermine the hard work that you and your teachers here put in. If you didn't quite get the GCSE results that you were hoping for, then you can always try blaming your parents, or at least their genes.
možda niste veoma vizuelni tip osobe. Hajde da uradimo drugi brzi test da otkrijemo to. Kada pravite tortu, da li više volite da - još jednom ruke gore - da li više volite da koristite kuvar sa slikama? Da, nekoliko ljudi. Da vam prijatelj objasni postupak? Ili da improvizujete u hodu? Nekoliko ljudi tamo. U redu, ako ste rekli pod A, onda to znači da ste vizuelni učenik, a najbolje učite kada su informacije vizuelno prikazane. Ako ste rekli B, to znači da ste auditivni učenik, da učite najbolje kada vam je informacija prikazana u audio formatu. Ako ste rekli C, to znači da ste kinestetički učenik, da najbolje učite kada radite nešto svojim rukama. Osim što, naravno, kao što verovatno pretpostavljate, to nije tako, jer je čitava stvar kompletan mit. Stilovi učenja su izmišljeni i nisu podržani naučnim dokazima. Znamo ovo jer u strogo kontrolisanim eksperimentalnim istraživanjima, kada je učenicima dat materijal da uče, bilo da je u njihovom preferiranom ili suprotnom stilu, nema nikakve razlike u količini informacija koje usvoje. Ako razmislite o tome samo na trenutak, očigledno je da to mora biti istinito. Očigledno da najbolji format prezentacije ne zavisi od vas, već od onoga što pokušavate da naučite. Da li biste mogli da naučite da vozite auto, na primer samo slušajući nekoga kako vam govori šta da uradite,
One thing that you shouldn't blame is being a left-brained or right-brained learner, because again, this is a myth. The myth here is that the left brain is logical, it's good with equations like this, and the right brain is more creative, so the right brain is better at music. But again, this is a myth, because nearly everything you do involves nearly all parts of your brain talking together, even just the most mundane thing like having a normal conversation. However, perhaps one reason why this myth has survived is that there is a slight grain of truth to it. A related version of the myth is that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people, which kind of makes sense because your brain controls the opposite hand. So in left-handed people, the right side of the brain is slightly more active than the left side of the brain, and the idea is the right-hand side is more creative. Now, it isn't true per se that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. But what is true is that ambidextrous people, or people who use both hands for different tasks, are more creative thinkers than one-handed people, because being ambidextrous involves having both sides of the brain talk to each other a lot, which seems to be involved in creative and flexible thinking. The myth of the creative left-hander arises from the fact that being ambidextrous is more common amongst left-handers than right-handers, so a grain of truth in the idea of the creative left-hander, but not much.
bez kinestetičkog iskustva? Da li bi ste mogli da rešite paralelne jednačine govoreći ih u svojoj glavi bez da ih napišete? Da biste mogli da ponavljate za ispit iz arhitekture koristeći interpretativni ples ako ste kinestetički učenik? Ne. Treba da uskladite materijal koji učite sa formatom prezentacije, a ne sebe. Znam da su mnogi od vas vrhunski učenici koji treba uskoro da dobiju rezultate mature. Ako još niste dobili baš ono čemu ste se nadali, ne možete baš onda kriviti stil učenja, ali možete razmisliti o tome da okrivite svoje gene. Ovde se radi o skorašnjem istraživanju na Londonskom koledžu koje je otkrilo da se 58% varijacija između različitih učenika i njihovih rezultata mature svodi na genetski faktor. To zvuči kao veoma precizna brojka, pa kako je možemo objasniti? Kada želimo da otkrijemo relativne doprinose gena i okruženja, možemo da napravimo istraživanje s blizancima. Identični blizanci dele 100% svog okruženja i 100% svojih gena, dok neidentični blizanci dele 100% svog okruženja, ali kao bilo koji brat i sestra, dele samo 50% svojih gena. Poredeći koliko su slični rezultati mature kod identičnih blizanaca nasuprot neidentičnim blizancima i uz malo pametne matematike, možemo dobiti ideju koliko varijacija i učinak zavise od okruženja, a koliko od gena. Ispada da 58% zavisi od gena.
A related myth that you've probably heard of is that we only use 10 percent of our brains. This is, again, a complete myth. Nearly everything that we do, even the most mundane thing, uses nearly all of our brains.
Ovim se ne podriva naporan rad vas i vaših profesora. Ako niste dobili one rezultate mature kojima ste se nadali, onda možete uvek da pokušate da krivite roditelje ili barem svoje gene.
That said, it is of course true that most of us don't use our brainpower quite as well as we could. So what could we do to boost our brainpower? Maybe we could listen to a nice bit of Mozart. Have you heard of the idea of the Mozart effect? The idea is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter and improves your performance on IQ tests. Now again, what's interesting about this myth is that although it's basically a myth, there is a grain of truth to it. So the original study found that participants who were played Mozart music for a few minutes did better on a subsequent IQ test than participants who simply sat in silence. But a follow-up study recruited some people who liked Mozart music and then another group of people who were fans of the horror stories of Stephen King. And they played the people the music or the stories. The people who preferred Mozart music to the stories got a bigger IQ boost from the Mozart than the stories, but the people who preferred the stories to the Mozart music got a bigger IQ boost from listening to the Stephen King stories than the Mozart music. So the truth is that listening to something that you enjoy perks you up a bit and gives you a temporary IQ boost on a narrow range of tasks. There's no suggestion that listening to Mozart, or indeed Stephen King stories, is going to make you any smarter in the long run.
Jedna stvar koju ne bi trebalo da krivite je to da li ste neko ko uči levom ili desnom stranom mozga, jer opet, to je mit. Ovde je mit da je leva strana mozga logična, dobra sa jednačinama, a desna strana mozga je kreativna, te je bolja u muzici. Ponovo, ovo je mit jer skoro sve što radite uključuje sve delove vašeg mozga koji zajedno komuniciraju, čak i za najobičniju stvar poput vođenja normalnog razgovora. Ipak, jedan razlog zašto je ovaj mit preživeo je taj da postoji mrvica istine u njemu. Verzija sličnog mita je da su levoruki ljudi kreativniji od desnorukih ljudi, što ima smisla jer vaš mozak kontroliše suprotne ruke, pa kod levorukih ljudi, desna strana mozga je malo aktivnija od leve strane mozga, i ideja je da je desna strana kreativnija. Nije istina samo po sebi da su levoruki ljudi kreativniji od desnorukih ljudi. Istina je da su ambideksteri, ili ljudi koji koriste obe ruke za različite zadatke, kreativniji mislioci od onih koji pišu jednom rukom, jer koristiti obe ruke podjednako znači da obe strane mozga dosta komuniciraju međusobno, što izgleda da je uključeno u stvaranje fleksibilnog mišljenja. Mit kreativnog levorukog čoveka nastaje iz činjenice da je korišćenje obe ruke podjednako više učestalo među levorukim nego desnorukim,
Another version of the Mozart myth is that listening to Mozart can make you not only cleverer but healthier, too.
tako da postoji nešto istine u ideji kreativnog levorukog čoveka, ali ne mnogo.
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be true of someone who listened to the music of Mozart almost every day, Mozart himself, who suffered from gonorrhea, smallpox, arthritis, and, what most people think eventually killed him in the end, syphilis. This suggests that Mozart should have been a bit more careful, perhaps, when choosing his sexual partners. But how do we choose a partner?
Sličan mit za koji ste verovatno čuli je da koristimo samo 10% svojih mozgova. Ovo je, još jednom, potpuni mit. Gotovo sve što radimo, čak i najobičnija stvar, angažuje skoro ceo mozak. Ipak, naravno da je tačno da većina nas ne koristi svoje mozgove toliko koliko bismo mogli. Šta bismo mogli da uradimo da pojačamo snagu svojih mozgova? Možda bismo mogli da slušamo malo Mocarta.
So a myth that I have to say is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists is that our preferences in a romantic partner are a product of our culture, that they're very culturally specific. But in fact, the data don't back this up. A famous study surveyed people from [37] different cultures across the globe from Americans to Zulus, on what they look for in a partner. And in every single culture across the globe, men placed more value on physical attractiveness in a partner than did women, and in every single culture, too, women placed more importance than did men on ambition and high earning power. In every culture, too, men preferred women who were younger than themselves, an average of, I think it was 2.66 years. And in every culture, too, women preferred men who were older than them, so an average of 3.42 years, which is why we've got here, "Everybody needs a Sugar Daddy."
Da li ste čuli za ideju Mocartovog efekta? Ideja je da vas slušanje Mocarta čini pametnijim i poboljšava vaše rezultate na testovima inteligencije. Ponovo, ono što je interesantno o ovom mitu je da iako je u osnovi mit, postoji nešto istine u njemu. Prvobitno istraživanje otkrilo je da su učesnici kojima je puštana Mocartova muzika na nekoliko minuta imali bolji rezultat na testu inteligencije od učesnika koji su samo sedeli u tišini. Ali naredno istraživanje uključivalo je neke ljude koji su voleli Mocartovu muziku a onda drugu grupu ljudi koji su bili ljubitelji horor priča Stivena Kinga. I puštali su im ili muziku ili priče. Ljudi koji su više voleli Mocartovu muziku od priča imali su veći IQ porast od Mocarta nego od priča ali ljudi koji su više voleli priče od Mocartove muzike imali su veći IQ porast od slušanja priča Stivena Kinga od Mocartove muzike. Istina je da vas slušanje nečega u čemu uživate podstiče
(Laughter)
i daje vam privremeni IQ podsticaj
So moving on from trying to score with a partner to trying to score in basketball or football or whatever your sport is. The myth here is that sportsmen go through "hot hand" streaks, Americans call them, or "purple patches," we sometimes say in England, where they just can't miss, like this guy here. But in fact, what happens is that if you analyze the pattern of hits and misses statistically, it turns out that it's nearly always at random. Your brain creates patterns from the randomness. If you toss a coin, a streak of heads or tails is going to come out somewhere in the randomness, and because the brain likes to see patterns where there are none, we look at these streaks and attribute meaning to them and say, "Yeah he's really on form today," whereas actually you would get the same pattern if you were just getting hits and misses at random.
za manje zadatke. Nigde se ne navodi da će vas slušanje Mocarta, ili čak priča Stivena Kinga učiniti pametnijim na duže staze. Druga verzija Mocartovog mita je da vas slušanje Mocarta može učiniti ne samo pametnijim već i zdravijim. Nažalost, ovo se ispostavlja netačnim za nekoga ko je slušao Mocartovu muziku gotovo svaki dan, samog Mocarta, ko je patio od gonoreje, boginja, artritisa, i onoga za šta većina ljudi misli da ga je ubilo, sifilisa. Ovo znači da je Mocart možda trebalo da bude pažljiviji pri odabiru svojih seksualnih partnera. Ali kako biramo partnera? Mit koji ponekad šire sociolozi
An exception to this, however, is penalty shootouts. A recent study looking at penalty shootouts in football showed that players who represent countries with a very bad record in penalty shootouts, like, for example, England, tend to be quicker to take their shots than countries with a better record, and presumably as a result, they're more likely to miss.
je da su naši izbori ljubavnog partnera proizvod naše kulture, da su veoma kulturološki posebni. Zapravo, podaci ne potvrđuju ovo. U čuvenom istraživanju ispitani su ljudi iz 37 raznih kultura širom sveta, od Amerikanaca do Zulua, o tome šta oni traže u partneru. U svakoj kulturi širom sveta,
Which raises the question of if there's any way we could improve people's performance. And one thing you might think about doing is punishing people for their misses and seeing if that improves them. This idea, the effect that punishment can improve performance, was what participants thought they were testing in Milgram's famous learning and punishment experiment that you've probably heard about if you're a psychology student. The story goes that participants were prepared to give what they believed to be fatal electric shocks to a fellow participant when they got a question wrong, just because someone in a white coat told them to.
muškarci su stavljali više vrednosti na fizičku privlačnost partnera nego što su žene, i u svakoj kulturi ženama je više od muškaraca bila bitna ambicija i moć zarađivanja. U svakoj kulturi muškarcima su se sviđale žene koje su bile mlađe od njih, u proseku, mislim da je bilo 2,66 godina, i u svakoj kulturi ženama su se više sviđali muškarci koji su bili stariji od njih, prosečne razlike od 3,42 godine, zbog čega ovde piše "Svakome treba tatica." Sada prelazimo sa uspeha sa partnerom na uspeh u košarci i fudbalu ili bilo kojem sportu.
But this story is a myth for three reasons. Firstly, and most crucially, the lab coat wasn't white. It was, in fact, grey. Secondly, the participants were told before the study and reminded any time they raised a concern, that although the shocks were painful, they were not fatal and indeed caused no permanent damage whatsoever. And thirdly, participants didn't give the shocks just because someone in the coat told them to. When they were interviewed after the study, all the participants said that they firmly believed that the learning and punishment study served a worthy scientific purpose which would have enduring gains for science, as opposed to the momentary, nonfatal discomfort caused to the participants.
Mit je da sportisti doživljavaju ono što Amerikanci nazivaju srećnim nizom da ih prati sportska sreća, kako mi kažemo, gde ne mogu da promaše, poput ovog momka ovde. Zapravo, ako statistički analizirate obrazac pogodaka i promašaja, ispada da su gotovo uvek nasumični. Vaš mozak stvara obrasce iz nasumičnosti. Ako bacite novčić niz glava ili pisama će se pojaviti negde u nasumičnosti, i zato što mozak voli da vidi obrasce gde ih nema, gledamo u te nizove i pridajemo im značenja i kažemo: "Da, danas je baš u formi", gde biste zapravo dobili isti obrazac kada biste imali nasumične pogotke i promašaje.
OK, so I've been talking for about 12 minutes now, and you've probably been sitting there listening to me, analyzing my speech patterns and body language and trying to work out if you should take any notice of what I'm saying, whether I'm telling the truth or whether I'm lying. But if so, you've probably completely failed, because although we all think we can catch a liar from their body language and speech patterns, hundreds of psychological tests over the years have shown that all of us, including police officers and detectives, are basically at chance when it comes to detecting lies from body language and verbal patterns. Interestingly, there is one exception: TV appeals for missing relatives. It's quite easy to predict when the relatives are missing and when the appealers have, in fact, murdered the relatives themselves. So hoax appealers are more likely to shake their heads, to look away, and to make errors in their speech, whereas genuine appealers are more likely to express hope that the person will return safely and to avoid brutal language. So, for example, they might say "taken from us" rather than "killed."
Ipak, izuzetak ovome je kazneni šesnaesterac. Nedavno istraživanje koje je pratilo šesnaesterce u fudbalu pokazuje da igrači koji predstavljaju zemlje sa veoma lošim izvedbama kaznenih šesnaesteraca poput Engleske, na primer, obično brže šutiraju nego pripadnici zemalja sa boljim izvedbama i verovatno kao posledica toga, veće su šanse za promašaj. Ovo otvara pitanje: da li postoji bilo kakav način da poboljšamo ljudske rezultate. Jedna stvar koju biste mogli da radite je da kaznite ljude za njihove propuste i pratite da li ih to poboljšava. Ova ideja, da efekat kažnjavanja može da poboljša rezultate, to su učesnici mislili da testiraju u čuvenom Migramovom eksperimentu učenja i kažnjavanja za koji ste verovatno čuli ako ste student psihologije. Priča govori da su učesnike pripremali da daju svojim kolegama nešto za šta su verovali da je smrtonosan električni šok kada pogrešno odgovore na pitanje, jer im je neko u belom mantilu tako rekao. Ova priča je mit iz tri razloga. Prvi i najvažniji je da mantil nije bio beo već zapravo siv.
Speaking of which, it's about time I killed this talk, but before I do, I just want to give you, in 30 seconds, the overarching myth of psychology. The myth is that psychology is just a collection of interesting theories, all of which say something useful and all of which have something to offer. What I hope to have shown you in the past few minutes is that this isn't true. What we need to do is assess psychological theories by seeing what predictions they make, whether that is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, that you learn better when information is presented in your preferred learning style or whatever it is, all of these are testable empirical predictions, and the only way we can make progress is to test these predictions against the data in tightly controlled experimental studies. And it's only by doing so that we can hope to discover which of these theories are well supported, and which, like all the ones I've told you about today, are myths.
Drugi, učesnicima je rečeno pre istraživanja i kad god počnu da se brinu, rečeno im je da iako su šokovi bili bolni, nisu bili smrtonosni i nisu izazivali trajno oštećenje. I treći, učesnici nisu davali šokove samo zato što im je neko u mantilu govorio da to urade. U intervjuu nakon istraživanja, svi učesnici rekli su da su čvrsto verovali da je istraživanje učenja i kazne služilo naučnoj svrsi koja bi imala dobrobit za nauku, nasuprot trenutnoj nesmrtonosnoj neudobnosti za učesnike. Dakle, govorim već oko 12 minuta, a vi verovatno sedite i slušate me, analizirajući moj obrazac govora i govor tela pokušavajući da odlučite da li treba da obratite pažnju na ono što govorim da li govorim istinu ili lažem, ali biste verovatno pogrešili,
Thank you.
jer iako mislimo da možemo da prepoznamo lažove
(Applause)
na osnovu njihovog govora tela i obrasca govora,