Jeg siger med det samme, at det har været en fantastisk måned for bedrageri. Og jeg taler ikke engang om kapløbet om at blive Amerikas præsident. (Latter) Vi har en højprofileret journalist der er taget for plagiat, en ung superstjerne forfatter hvis bøger involverer så mange opdigtede citater at de har taget den af hylderne; en New York Times afsløring om anmeldelser om falske bøger. Det har været fantastisk.
Let me tell you, it has been a fantastic month for deception. And I'm not even talking about the American presidential race. (Laughter) We have a high-profile journalist caught for plagiarism, a young superstar writer whose book involves so many made up quotes that they've pulled it from the shelves; a New York Times exposé on fake book reviews. It's been fantastic.
Nu er det, selvfølgelig, ikke al bedrag der kommer i nyhederne. Meget af bedraget er hverdag. Faktisk, meget forskning viser at vi alle lyver en eller to gange om dagen, som Dave foreslog. Så den er cirka 18.30 nu, det tyder på at de fleste af os har løjet nu. Lad os se på Winnipeg. Hvor mange af jer, i løbet af de sidste 24 timer -- tænker tilbage -- har fortalt en lille hvid løgn, eller en stor? Hvor mange af jer derude har fortalt en lille løgn?
Now, of course, not all deception hits the news. Much of the deception is everyday. In fact, a lot of research shows that we all lie once or twice a day, as Dave suggested. So it's about 6:30 now, suggests that most of us should have lied. Let's take a look at Winnipeg. How many of you, in the last 24 hours -- think back -- have told a little fib, or a big one? How many have told a little lie out there?
Okay, godt. Dette er alle løgnerne. Vær sikker på at I lægger mærke til dem. (Latter)
All right, good. These are all the liars. Make sure you pay attention to them. (Laughter)
Nej, det så godt ud, det var cirka to tredjedele af jer. Den anden tredjedel fortalte ikke løgne, eller glemte det måske, eller I lyver om at lyve, hvilket er meget, meget uærligt. (Latter) Dette passer med meget af den forskning der foreslår at det at lyve er meget omsiggribende. Det er det omsiggribende, kombineret med det centrale i hvad det betyder at være et menneske, det faktum at vi kan fortælle sandheden eller finde på noget, det har fascineret mennesker gennem historien. Her har vi Diogenes med sin lanterne. Er der nogen der ved hvad han ledte efter? Et eneste ærligt menneske, og han døde uden at finde et i Grækenland. Og vi har Confucius i østen der var virkelig bekymret for oprigtighed, at man ikke kun "walked the walk" eller "talked the talk", men at man troede på det man gjorde. Man troede på sine principper.
No, that looked good, it was about two thirds of you. The other third didn't lie, or perhaps forgot, or you're lying to me about your lying, which is very, very devious. (Laughter) This fits with a lot of the research, which suggests that lying is very pervasive. It's this pervasiveness, combined with the centrality to what it means to be a human, the fact that we can tell the truth or make something up, that has fascinated people throughout history. Here we have Diogenes with his lantern. Does anybody know what he was looking for? A single honest man, and he died without finding one back in Greece. And we have Confucius in the East who was really concerned with sincerity, not only that you walked the walk or talked the talk, but that you believed in what you were doing. You believed in your principles.
Nu kom mit første professionelle møde med bedrag lidt senere end hos disse gutter, et par tusinde år. Jeg var tolder i Canada tilbage i midten af 90'erne. Ja. Jeg forsvarede Canadas grænser. I tænker måske at det er et våben lige her. Faktisk, er det et stempel. Jeg brugte et stempel til at forsvare Canadas grænser. (Latter) Meget canadisk af mig. Jeg lærte meget om bedrag mens jeg gjorde mig pligt her i tolden, en af dem var at det meste af det jeg troede jeg viste om bedrag var forkert, og jeg vil fortælle jer lidt om det i nat.
Now my first professional encounter with deception is a little bit later than these guys, a couple thousand years. I was a customs officer for Canada back in the mid-'90s. Yeah. I was defending Canada's borders. You may think that's a weapon right there. In fact, that's a stamp. I used a stamp to defend Canada's borders. (Laughter) Very Canadian of me. I learned a lot about deception while doing my duty here in customs, one of which was that most of what I thought I knew about deception was wrong, and I'll tell you about some of that tonight.
Men selv siden 1995, '96, måden vi kommunikerer på er blevet komplet transformeret. Vi e-mailer, vi sms'er, vi skyper, vi facebooker. Det er vanvittigt. Næsten alle aspekter i menneskelig kommunikation er forandret, og selvfølgelig har det haft en indflydelse på bedrag. Lad mig fortælle jer lidt om et par nye former for bedrag som vi har sporet og dokumenteret. De hedder butleren, sokkedukken og den kinesiske vand hær. Det lyder en lille smule som en mærkelig bog, men der er faktisk alle nye typer af løgne i.
But even since just 1995, '96, the way we communicate has been completely transformed. We email, we text, we skype, we Facebook. It's insane. Almost every aspect of human communication's been changed, and of course that's had an impact on deception. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of new deceptions we've been tracking and documenting. They're called the Butler, the Sock Puppet and the Chinese Water Army. It sounds a little bit like a weird book, but actually they're all new types of lies.
Lad os begynde med butlerne. Her er et eksempel på en: "Er på vej." Nogen der nogensinde har skrevet, "Er på vej?" Så har I også løjet. (Latter) Vi er aldrig på vej. Vi tænker på at være på vej. Her er en anden: "Undskyld jeg ikke skrev til dig tidligere. Mit batteri var dødt." Ens batteri var ikke dødt. Man var ikke i et område uden dækning. Man gad bare ikke at svare tilbage til den person på det tidspunkt. Her er en sidste: Man taler med nogen, og man siger, "Undskyld, jeg skal arbejde, bliver nød til at smutte." Men i virkeligheden keder man sig. Man vil tale med en anden. Hver af dem handler om et forhold, og dette er en verden der er forbundet 24/7. Når du får mit telefonnummer kan du bogstavelig talt komme i kontakt med mig 24 timer i døgnet. Så de løgne der bliver brugt af mennesker til at skabe en buffer, ligesom butleren plejede at gøre, mellem os og forbindelserne til alle andre. Men de er meget specielle. De bruger en dobbelttydighed der kommer af at bruge teknologien. Man ved ikke hvor jeg er eller hvad jeg laver eller hvem jeg er sammen med. Og de er rettet efter at beskytte forholdene. Dette er ikke bare folk der er nogle idioter. Dette er mennesker der siger, hør engang, jeg vil ikke tale med dig nu, eller jeg ville ikke tale med dig på det tidspunkt, men jeg tænker stadig på dig. Vores forhold er stadig vigtige.
Let's start with the Butlers. Here's an example of one: "On my way." Anybody ever written, "On my way?" Then you've also lied. (Laughter) We're never on our way. We're thinking about going on our way. Here's another one: "Sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. My battery was dead." Your battery wasn't dead. You weren't in a dead zone. You just didn't want to respond to that person that time. Here's the last one: You're talking to somebody, and you say, "Sorry, got work, gotta go." But really, you're just bored. You want to talk to somebody else. Each of these is about a relationship, and this is a 24/7 connected world. Once you get my cell phone number, you can literally be in touch with me 24 hours a day. And so these lies are being used by people to create a buffer, like the butler used to do, between us and the connections to everybody else. But they're very special. They use ambiguity that comes from using technology. You don't know where I am or what I'm doing or who I'm with. And they're aimed at protecting the relationships. These aren't just people being jerks. These are people that are saying, look, I don't want to talk to you now, or I didn't want to talk to you then, but I still care about you. Our relationship is still important.
Men, sokkedukken, på den anden side, er et helt andet slags dyr. Sokkedukken handler ikke om dobbelttydighed, som sådan. Det handler om identitet. Lad mig give jer et meget nyt eksempel, som i, sidste uge. Der er R.J. Ellory, best-seller forfatter i England. Her er en af hans bedst sælgende bøger. Her er en online anmeldelse, på Amazon. Min favorit, af Nicodemus Jones, er, "Hvadend den ellers gør, så rører den ved din sjæl." Og selvfølgelig, kunne man mistænke at Nicodemus Jones er R.J. Ellory. Han skrev meget, meget positive anmeldelser om sig selv. Surprise, surprise.
Now, the Sock Puppet, on the other hand, is a totally different animal. The sock puppet isn't about ambiguity, per se. It's about identity. Let me give you a very recent example, as in, like, last week. Here's R.J. Ellory, best-seller author in Britain. Here's one of his bestselling books. Here's a reviewer online, on Amazon. My favorite, by Nicodemus Jones, is, "Whatever else it might do, it will touch your soul." And of course, you might suspect that Nicodemus Jones is R.J. Ellory. He wrote very, very positive reviews about himself. Surprise, surprise.
Nu er dette sokkedukke faktisk ikke ny. Walt Whitman gjorde også dette engang, før der var internet teknologi. Sokkedukken bliver interessant når man kommer op i større målestok, som er området for den kinesiske vand hær. Den kinesiske vand hær referer til tusindvis af mennesker i Kina der bliver betalt små mængder penge for at producere indhold. Det kunne være anmeldelser. Det kunne være propaganda. Regeringen lejer disse mennesker, firmaer lejer dem, over det hele. I Nordamerika, kalder vi dette astroturfing, og astroturfing er meget almindeligt nu. Der er mange bekymringer omkring det. Vi ser dette specielt med produkt anmeldelser, bog anmeldelser, alt fra hoteller til om en brødrister er en god brødrister eller ej.
Now this Sock Puppet stuff isn't actually that new. Walt Whitman also did this back in the day, before there was Internet technology. Sock Puppet becomes interesting when we get to scale, which is the domain of the Chinese Water Army. Chinese Water Army refers to thousands of people in China that are paid small amounts of money to produce content. It could be reviews. It could be propaganda. The government hires these people, companies hire them, all over the place. In North America, we call this Astroturfing, and Astroturfing is very common now. There's a lot of concerns about it. We see this especially with product reviews, book reviews, everything from hotels to whether that toaster is a good toaster or not.
Når man ser på disse tre anmeldelser, eller disse tre typer bedrag, kunne man tænke, wow, internettet får os virkelig til at være en bedragerisk art, specielt når man tænker på astroturfing, hvor vi kan se bedrageriet på større målestoksforhold. Men faktisk, er det jeg har fundet ud af meget anderledes end det. Lad os se bort fra de online anonyme sex chatrum, som jeg er sikker på at ingen af jer har besøgt. Jeg kan forsikre jer for at der er bedrag der. Og lad os se bort fra den nigerianske prins der har sendt en en e-mail om at få de 43 millioner ud af landet. (Latter) Lad os glemme ham fyren også. Lad os fokusere på samtaler mellem vores venner og vores familie og vores kolleger og vores kære. Det er samtaler der virkelig betyder noget. Hvad gør teknologi ved bedrag med disse mennesker?
Now, looking at these three reviews, or these three types of deception, you might think, wow, the Internet is really making us a deceptive species, especially when you think about the Astroturfing, where we can see deception brought up to scale. But actually, what I've been finding is very different from that. Now, let's put aside the online anonymous sex chatrooms, which I'm sure none of you have been in. I can assure you there's deception there. And let's put aside the Nigerian prince who's emailed you about getting the 43 million out of the country. (Laughter) Let's forget about that guy, too. Let's focus on the conversations between our friends and our family and our coworkers and our loved ones. Those are the conversations that really matter. What does technology do to deception with those folks?
Her er et par studier. Et af studierne vi laver kaldes dagbogs studier, hvor vi beder mennesker om at optage alle deres samtaler og alle deres løgne i syv dage, og det vi kan gøre er, at vi kan udregne hvor mange løgne der fandt sted per samtale i et bestemt medie, og den opdagelse som vi laver der overrasker mennesker mest er, at e-mail er den mest ærlige af disse tre medier. Og det forvirrer virkelig folk, fordi vi tror jamen, der er ikke nogen kropssprog tegn, så hvorfor lyver man ikke mere? Telefonen til gengæld, er de fleste løgne. Igen og igen og igen ser vi at telefonen er det apparat hvor mennesker lyver mest, og måske på grund af butler løgnens dobbelttydighed som jeg fortalte om. Dette har en tendens til at være noget helt andet end folk forventer.
Here's a couple of studies. One of the studies we do are called diary studies, in which we ask people to record all of their conversations and all of their lies for seven days, and what we can do then is calculate how many lies took place per conversation within a medium, and the finding that we get that surprises people the most is that email is the most honest of those three media. And it really throws people for a loop because we think, well, there's no nonverbal cues, so why don't you lie more? The phone, in contrast, the most lies. Again and again and again we see the phone is the device that people lie on the most, and perhaps because of the Butler Lie ambiguities I was telling you about. This tends to be very different from what people expect.
Hvad med CV'er? Vi lavede et studie hvori vi fik mennesker til at søge et job, og de kunne søge om arbejdet enten med et traditionelt papir CV, eller på LinkedIn, hvilket er et socialt netværks sted ligesom Facebook, men for professionelle -- det involverer den samme information som et CV. Og det vi fandt ud af var, til mange menneskers overraskelse, at LinkedIn CV'erne var mere ærlige omkring de ting der var vigtige for arbejdsgivere, såsom ens pligter eller ens evner ved et tidligere arbejde.
What about résumés? We did a study in which we had people apply for a job, and they could apply for a job either with a traditional paper résumé, or on LinkedIn, which is a social networking site like Facebook, but for professionals -- involves the same information as a résumé. And what we found, to many people's surprise, was that those LinkedIn résumés were more honest on the things that mattered to employers, like your responsibilities or your skills at your previous job.
Hvad med Facebook selv? I ved, vi tror altid at hey, der er disse idealiserede versioner, mennesker viser bare de bedste ting der skete i deres liv. Det har jeg tænkt mange gange. Mine venner, de kan på ingen måde være så seje og have så godt et liv. Jamen, et studie afprøvede dette ved at undersøge menneskers personligheder. De havde fire gode venner af en person til at bedømme deres personlighed. Så fik de fremmede, mange fremmede, til at bedømme personens personlighed kun fra Facebook, og det de fandt ud af var, at de bedømmelser af personlighed var temmelig identiske, stor korrelation, hvilket betyder at Facebook profiler virkelig reflekterer vores faktiske personlighed.
How about Facebook itself? You know, we always think that hey, there are these idealized versions, people are just showing the best things that happened in their lives. I've thought that many times. My friends, no way they can be that cool and have good of a life. Well, one study tested this by examining people's personalities. They had four good friends of a person judge their personality. Then they had strangers, many strangers, judge the person's personality just from Facebook, and what they found was those judgments of the personality were pretty much identical, highly correlated, meaning that Facebook profiles really do reflect our actual personality.
Okay, jamen, hvad med online dating? Jeg mener, det er et temmelig bedragerisk rum. Jeg er sikker på at I alle har "venner" der har brugt online dating. (Latter) Og de ville fortælle jer om den fyr der ikke havde noget hår da han viste sig, eller kvinden der ikke lignede sit billede. Jamen, vi var virkelig interesserede i det, så det vi gjorde var at vi tog mennesker, online datere, ind i laboratoriet og så målte vi dem. Vi fik deres højde op imod en væg, vi satte dem på en vægt, fik deres vægt -- kvinderne elskede det -- og så fik vi deres kørekort for at bestemme deres alder. Og det vi fandt ud af, var meget, meget interessant. Her er et eksempel på mændene og deres højde. Nede i bunden viser det hvor høje de sagde de var i deres profil. Langs y-aksen, den vertikale akse, vises hvor høje de egentlig var. Den diagonale linje er sandhedslinjen. Hvis deres prik er derpå, fortalte de faktisk sandheden. Som I kan se her, er de fleste af de røde prikker under linjen. Det betyder at fyrene løj om deres højde. Faktisk, løj de om deres højde med ni tiendedele af en inch [2,3cm], det vi i laboratoriet kalder en "stærk oprunding." (Latter) Man kommer til 5'8" og en tiendedel [173cm] og bang! 5'9" [175cm] Men det der er virkelig vigtigt her er, prøv at se alle prikkerne. De samler sig temmelig tæt ved sandheden. Det vi fandt ud af var at 80 procent af vores deltagere ganske rigtigt løj om en af disse dimensioner, men de løj altid en lille smule. En af grundene er temmelig simpel. Hvis man går på en date, en kaffe date, og man er komplet anderledes end det man sagde, game over. Ikke? Så mennesker løj ofte, men de løj diskret, ikke for meget. De holdte sig tilbage.
All right, well, what about online dating? I mean, that's a pretty deceptive space. I'm sure you all have "friends" that have used online dating. (Laughter) And they would tell you about that guy that had no hair when he came, or the woman that didn't look at all like her photo. Well, we were really interested in it, and so what we did is we brought people, online daters, into the lab, and then we measured them. We got their height up against the wall, we put them on a scale, got their weight -- ladies loved that -- and then we actually got their driver's license to get their age. And what we found was very, very interesting. Here's an example of the men and the height. Along the bottom is how tall they said they were in their profile. Along the y-axis, the vertical axis, is how tall they actually were. That diagonal line is the truth line. If their dot's on it, they were telling exactly the truth. Now, as you see, most of the little dots are below the line. What it means is all the guys were lying about their height. In fact, they lied about their height about nine tenths of an inch, what we say in the lab as "strong rounding up." (Laughter) You get to 5'8" and one tenth, and boom! 5'9". But what's really important here is, look at all those dots. They are clustering pretty close to the truth. What we found was 80 percent of our participants did indeed lie on one of those dimensions, but they always lied by a little bit. One of the reasons is pretty simple. If you go to a date, a coffee date, and you're completely different than what you said, game over. Right? So people lied frequently, but they lied subtly, not too much. They were constrained.
Jamen, hvad forklarer alle disse studier? Hvad forklarer det faktum at på trods af vores intuition, også min, er meget online kommunikation, teknologi formidlet kommunikation, mere ærligt ansigt til ansigt? Det er virkelig mærkeligt. Hvordan forklarer vi dette?
Well, what explains all these studies? What explains the fact that despite our intuitions, mine included, a lot of online communication, technologically-mediated communication, is more honest than face to face? That really is strange. How do we explain this?
Jamen, for at gøre det, er den ene ting vi kan gøre at kigge på bedrag Det er en meget gammel litteratur nu, den bliver snart 50 år. Den er blevet gennemgået mange gange. Der har været tusinder af forsøg, hundredvis af studier, og der er nogle virkelig tiltalende resultater.
Well, to do that, one thing is we can look at the deception-detection literature. It's a very old literature by now, it's coming up on 50 years. It's been reviewed many times. There's been thousands of trials, hundreds of studies, and there's some really compelling findings.
Det første er, at vi er virkelig dårlige til at udpege bedrag, virkelig dårlige. Fire og halvtreds procents nøjagtighed i gennemsnit hvis man skal se om nogen der lige sagde noget lyver eller ej. Det er virkelig dårligt. Hvorfor er det så dårligt? Jamen det har noget at gøre med Pinocchios næse. Hvis jeg spurgte jer ad, hvad støtter I jer til når I kigger på nogen og man vil finde ud af om de lyver? Hvilken tegn ville I holde øje med? De fleste af jer ville sige, at en af tegnene man kan holde øje med er øjnene. Øjnene er sjælens vindue. Og I er ikke alene. Rundt om i verden, i næsten alle kulturer, er et af de mest populære tegn øjnene. Men forskning der er foregået i løbet af de sidste 50 år viser, at der faktisk ikke er noget pålideligt tegn til bedrag, hvilket forbavsede mig, og det er en af de hårde lektioner som jeg lærte da jeg var tolder. Øjnene fortæller os ikke om nogen lyver eller ej. Nogle situationer, ja -- høje odds, måske udvider deres pupiller sig, deres stemmeleje bliver højere, deres kropssprog ændrer sig lidt, men ikke altid, ikke for alle, det er ikke pålideligt. Mærkeligt. Den anden ting er, at bare fordi man ikke kan se mig betyder det ikke at jeg lyver. Det er almindelig fornuft men et vigtigt resultat er at der er en grund til vi lyver. Vi lyver for at beskytte os selv eller for vores egen vinding eller for en andens vinding. Så der er nogle patologiske løgnere, men de udgør en lille del af befolkningen. Der er en årsag til at vi lyver. Bare fordi mennesker ikke kan se os, betyder det ikke at vi nødvendigvis lyver.
The first is, we're really bad at detecting deception, really bad. Fifty-four percent accuracy on average when you have to tell if somebody that just said a statement is lying or not. That's really bad. Why is it so bad? Well it has to do with Pinocchio's nose. If I were to ask you guys, what do you rely on when you're looking at somebody and you want to find out if they're lying? What cue do you pay attention to? Most of you would say that one of the cues you look at is the eyes. The eyes are the window to the soul. And you're not alone. Around the world, almost every culture, one of the top cues is eyes. But the research over the last 50 years says there's actually no reliable cue to deception, which blew me away, and it's one of the hard lessons that I learned when I was customs officer. The eyes do not tell us whether somebody's lying or not. Some situations, yes -- high stakes, maybe their pupils dilate, their pitch goes up, their body movements change a little bit, but not all the time, not for everybody, it's not reliable. Strange. The other thing is that just because you can't see me doesn't mean I'm going to lie. It's common sense, but one important finding is that we lie for a reason. We lie to protect ourselves or for our own gain or for somebody else's gain. So there are some pathological liars, but they make up a tiny portion of the population. We lie for a reason. Just because people can't see us doesn't mean we're going to necessarily lie.
Men jeg tror der faktisk sker noget meget mere interessant og fundamentalt her. Den næste store ting for mig, den næste store ide, kan vi finde ved at gå langt tilbage i historien til vores sprogs oprindelser. De fleste lingvister er enige i at vi begyndte at tale et sted mellem 50.000 og 100.000 år siden. Det er lang tid siden. Mange mennesker har levet siden dengang. Vi har talt, tror jeg, om ild og grotter og sabeltigere. Jeg ved ikke hvad de snakkede om, men de snakkede meget, og som jeg sagde, der er mange mennesker der har udviklet tale, cirka 100 milliarder faktisk. Det er dog er vigtigt er, at skrift først opstod for cirka 5.000 år siden. Så det det betyder er, at alle menneskerne der levede før skrift, hvert ord de nogensinde sagde, hver ytring, forsvandt. Intet spor. Kortvarigt. Væk. Så vi har udviklet talen på en måde hvor der ikke er nogen registrering. Faktisk, selv den næste store udfordring for skriften kom for kun 500 år siden, med trykpressen, som er meget ny i vores historie, og læsedygtigheden forblev utrolig lav lige indtil anden verdenskrig, så selv mennesker i de sidste to årtusinde, de fleste af de ord de nogensinde sagde -- poof! -- forsvandt.
But I think there's actually something much more interesting and fundamental going on here. The next big thing for me, the next big idea, we can find by going way back in history to the origins of language. Most linguists agree that we started speaking somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That's a long time ago. A lot of humans have lived since then. We've been talking, I guess, about fires and caves and saber-toothed tigers. I don't know what they talked about, but they were doing a lot of talking, and like I said, there's a lot of humans evolving speaking, about 100 billion people in fact. What's important though is that writing only emerged about 5,000 years ago. So what that means is that all the people before there was any writing, every word that they ever said, every utterance disappeared. No trace. Evanescent. Gone. So we've been evolving to talk in a way in which there is no record. In fact, even the next big change to writing was only 500 years ago now, with the printing press, which is very recent in our past, and literacy rates remained incredibly low right up until World War II, so even the people of the last two millennia, most of the words they ever said -- poof! -- disappeared.
Lad os nu se på netværksalderen. Hvor mange af jer har optaget noget i dag? Nogen der har skrevet noget i dag? Nogen der har skrevet et ord? Det ser ud til at næsten hver eneste person her har optaget noget. I dette lokale, lige nu, har vi sikkert optaget mere end næsten hele menneskeheden i oldtidshistorien. Det er vanvittigt. Vi træder i denne utrolige periode af forandring i den menneskelige evolution hvor vi lærte at tale på en måde hvor vores ord forsvandt, men vi er i et miljø hvor vi optager alt. Faktisk, jeg tror at der i en meget nær fremtid, er det ikke kun det vi skriver der bliver optaget, alt det vi gør vil blive registreret. Hvad betyder det? Hvad er det næste store ide ud fra det? Jamen, som en socialforsker, er dette den meste utrolige ting jeg nogensinde har drømt om. Nu kan man se på alle disse ord der plejede at, i årtusinder, forsvinde. Jeg kan se på løgne der før blev sagt og så forsvandt. Kan I huske de astroturfing anmeldelser som vi snakkede om før? Jamen, når de skriver en falsk anmeldelse, skal de slå op et sted, og det bliver efterladt til os.
Let's turn to now, the networked age. How many of you have recorded something today? Anybody do any writing today? Did anybody write a word? It looks like almost every single person here recorded something. In this room, right now, we've probably recorded more than almost all of human pre-ancient history. That is crazy. We're entering this amazing period of flux in human evolution where we've evolved to speak in a way in which our words disappear, but we're in an environment where we're recording everything. In fact, I think in the very near future, it's not just what we write that will be recorded, everything we do will be recorded. What does that mean? What's the next big idea from that? Well, as a social scientist, this is the most amazing thing I have ever even dreamed of. Now, I can look at all those words that used to, for millennia, disappear. I can look at lies that before were said and then gone. You remember those Astroturfing reviews that we were talking about before? Well, when they write a fake review, they have to post it somewhere, and it's left behind for us.
Så en ting vi gjorde, og jeg vil give jer et eksempel af at se på sproget, er at vi betalte folk til at skrive nogle falske anmeldelser. En af disse anmeldelser er falsk. Den person har aldrig været på James Hotel. Den anden anmeldelse er ægte. Personen har været der. Nu er jeres opgave at beslutte hvilken anmeldelse er falsk? Jeg giver jer et øjeblik til at gennemlæse dem. Men jeg vil have alle til at løfte hånden i vejret på et tidspunkt. Husk på, jeg studerer bedrag. Jeg ved det hvis I ikke rækker hånden i vejret. Okay, hvor mange af jer tror på at A er den falske? Okay. Meget godt. Cirka halvdelen. Og hvor mange af jer tor det er B? Okay. Lidt flere er for B. Fremragende. Her er svaret. B er falsk. Godt klaret gruppe nummer to. I dominerede den første gruppe. (Latter) I er faktisk en lille smule usædvanlige. Hver gang vi demonstrerer dette, er det typisk en 50-50 deling, hvilket passer med forskningen, 54 procent. Måske er folk her i Winnipeg mere mistænksomme og bedre til at regne den ud. Disse kolde, hårde vintre, jeg elsker det.
So one thing that we did, and I'll give you an example of looking at the language, is we paid people to write some fake reviews. One of these reviews is fake. The person never was at the James Hotel. The other review is real. The person stayed there. Now, your task now is to decide which review is fake? I'll give you a moment to read through them. But I want everybody to raise their hand at some point. Remember, I study deception. I can tell if you don't raise your hand. All right, how many of you believe that A is the fake? All right. Very good. About half. And how many of you think that B is? All right. Slightly more for B. Excellent. Here's the answer. B is a fake. Well done second group. You dominated the first group. (Laughter) You're actually a little bit unusual. Every time we demonstrate this, it's usually about a 50-50 split, which fits with the research, 54 percent. Maybe people here in Winnipeg are more suspicious and better at figuring it out. Those cold, hard winters, I love it.
Okay, så hvorfor bekymrer jeg mig om dette? Jamen, det jeg kan gøre med mine kolleger i computer videnskab er at vi kan skabe computeralgoritmer der kan analysere de lingvistiske spor af bedrag. Lad mig fremhæve et par ting her i den falske anmeldelse. Det første er at løgnere har en tendens til at tænke på narrativ. De finder på en historie: Hvem? Hvad skete der? Og det er hvad der skete her. Vores falske anmeldelser talte om hvem de var sammen med og hvad de lavede. De brugte også første person, ental, jeg, meget mere end de mennesker der faktisk boede der. De indsatte sig selv i hotelanmeldelsen, for på en måde at overbevise en om at de var der. Omvendt, de mennesker der skrev anmeldelserne og faktisk var der, deres kroppe trådte faktisk ind i den fysiske plads, de talte meget mere om rumlig information. De fortalte hvor stort badeværelset var, eller de sagde, I ved, så langt er der til shoppingmuligheder fra hotellet.
All right, so why do I care about this? Well, what I can do now with my colleagues in computer science is we can create computer algorithms that can analyze the linguistic traces of deception. Let me highlight a couple of things here in the fake review. The first is that liars tend to think about narrative. They make up a story: Who? And what happened? And that's what happened here. Our fake reviewers talked about who they were with and what they were doing. They also used the first person singular, I, way more than the people that actually stayed there. They were inserting themselves into the hotel review, kind of trying to convince you they were there. In contrast, the people that wrote the reviews that were actually there, their bodies actually entered the physical space, they talked a lot more about spatial information. They said how big the bathroom was, or they said, you know, here's how far shopping is from the hotel.
Nu gjorde I det temmelig godt. De fleste mennesker klarer sig ud fra tilfældighed i denne opgave. Vores computer algoritme er meget præcis, meget mere præcis end menneske kan være, og det vil ikke være præcist hver gang. Dette er ikke en bedrag opdagelses maskine der fortæller en om ens kæreste lyver overfor en via sms. Vi tror at hver løgn nu, hver type løgn -- falske hotelanmeldelser, falske skoanmeldelser, at ens kæreste er en utro på en sms besked -- det er alt sammen forskellige løgne. De kommer til at have forskellige sprogmønstre. Men fordi alt nu bliver dokumenteret, kan vi se på alle den slags løgne.
Now, you guys did pretty well. Most people perform at chance at this task. Our computer algorithm is very accurate, much more accurate than humans can be, and it's not going to be accurate all the time. This isn't a deception-detection machine to tell if your girlfriend's lying to you on text messaging. We believe that every lie now, every type of lie -- fake hotel reviews, fake shoe reviews, your girlfriend cheating on you with text messaging -- those are all different lies. They're going to have different patterns of language. But because everything's recorded now, we can look at all of those kinds of lies.
Som jeg sagde, som en socialforsker, er dette vidunderligt. Det er transformerende. Vi bliver i stand til at lære så meget mere om menneskelige tanker og udtryk, om alt fra kærlighed til attituder, fordi alt bliver dokumenteret nu, men hvad betyder det for den gennemsnitlige borger? Hvad betyder det for os i vores liv? Jamen, lad os glemme bedrag et øjeblik. En af de store ideer, mener jeg, er at vi efterlader disse kæmpe mængder af spor. Min udbakke til e-mail er massiv, og jeg kigger aldrig i den. Jeg skriver hele tiden, men jeg kigger aldrig i mine optegnelser, på mit spor. Og jeg tror vi kommer til at se meget mere af det, hvor vi kan reflektere på hvem vi er ved at kigge på de vi skrev, det vi sagde, det vi gjorde.
Now, as I said, as a social scientist, this is wonderful. It's transformational. We're going to be able to learn so much more about human thought and expression, about everything from love to attitudes, because everything is being recorded now, but what does it mean for the average citizen? What does it mean for us in our lives? Well, let's forget deception for a bit. One of the big ideas, I believe, is that we're leaving these huge traces behind. My outbox for email is massive, and I never look at it. I write all the time, but I never look at my record, at my trace. And I think we're going to see a lot more of that, where we can reflect on who we are by looking at what we wrote, what we said, what we did.
Hvis vi går tilbage til bedrag, er der et par take-away ting her. For det første, at lyve online kan være farligt, ikke? Ikke nok med at man efterlader en optegnelse over en selv på ens maskine, men man efterlader en optegnelse på den person som man fortalte en løgn til, og man efterlader dem også til mig så jeg kan analysere dem med computer algoritmer. Så naturligvis, bare gør det, det er godt. Men når det kommer til at lyve og hvad vi har lyst til at gøre med vores liv, tror jeg vi kan gå tilbage til Diogenes og Confucius. Og de var mindre bekymrede om om man skulle lyve eller ej, og mere bekymrede over at være tro mod sig selv, og jeg mener det er virkelig vigtigt. Når man er på nippet til at sige eller gøre noget, kan vi tænke, vil jeg have at dette er en del af min arv, en del af mine personlige optegnelser? Fordi i den digitale alder vi lever i nu, i den netværkede alder, efterlader vi alle optegnelser. Tusind tak for jeres tid, og held og lykke med jeres optegnelser. (Bifald)
Now, if we bring it back to deception, there's a couple of take-away things here. First, lying online can be very dangerous, right? Not only are you leaving a record for yourself on your machine, but you're leaving a record on the person that you were lying to, and you're also leaving them around for me to analyze with some computer algorithms. So by all means, go ahead and do that, that's good. But when it comes to lying and what we want to do with our lives, I think we can go back to Diogenes and Confucius. And they were less concerned about whether to lie or not to lie, and more concerned about being true to the self, and I think this is really important. Now, when you are about to say or do something, we can think, do I want this to be part of my legacy, part of my personal record? Because in the digital age we live in now, in the networked age, we are all leaving a record. Thank you so much for your time, and good luck with your record. (Applause)