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.
Dozvolite da vam ispričam, ovo je bio fantastičan mesec za prevare. A čak ni ne mislim na kampanju za američke predsedničke izbore. (Smeh) Imamo poznatog novinara koji je uhvaćen zbog plagijata, mladog pisca, super zvezdu, čija knjiga sadrži toliko izmišljenih citata da je povučena iz prodaje; ekspoze u Njujork Tajmsu o lažnim recenzijama. Bilo je fantastično.
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?
Naravno, ne dospevaju sve prevare u vesti. Mnogo je svakodnevnih prevara. Zapravo, veliki broj istraživanja ukazuje da svi mi slažemo jednom ili dva puta dnevno, kako Dejv iznosi. Sada je oko 6:30, što znači da je većina nas verovatno već slagala. Hajde da pogledamo Vinipeg. Koliko vas je u poslednjih 24 sata - prisetite se - izrekla malu ili veliku neistinu? Koliko vas je izreklo malu laž?
All right, good. These are all the liars. Make sure you pay attention to them. (Laughter)
U redu. Svi ovi su lažovi. Obratite pažnju na njih. (Smeh) Ne, to je izgledalo u redu, skoro dve trećine vas.
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.
Preostala trećina nije lagala, ili je možda zaboravila da jeste, ili lažete mene o svom laganju, što je vrlo, vrlo nepošteno. (Smeh) To se poklapa sa mnogim istraživanjima koja ukazuju da je laganje široko rasprostranjeno. Ta rasprostranjenost, zajedno sa suštinom onoga što nas čini ljudskim bićem, činjenica da možemo da kažemo istinu ili da nešto izmislimo, fascinirala je ljude kroz istoriju. Ovde imamo Diogena sa njegovom lampom. Da li neko zna šta je on tražio? Jednog jedinog poštenog čoveka, i umro je, a nije našao nijednog takvog u Grčkoj u to vreme. Imamo i Konfučija na Dalekom Istoku, koji se bavio iskrenošću, ne samo da ste bili dosledni u onome što pričate i radite, već da ste verovali u to šta ste radili, verovali u svoje principe.
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.
Moj prvi profesionalni susret sa prevarom je bio nešto kasnije od ove dvojice, nekoliko hiljada godina kasnije. Radio sam kao kanadski carinik sredinom 90-tih godina. Da. Branio sam kanadske granice. Možete pomisliti da je to tu oružje. U stvari, to je pečat. Branio sam kanadske granice pečatom. (Smeh) Pravi Kanađanin. Puno sam naučio o prevarama dok sam vršio svoju dužnost na carini, a jedno je da je većina onoga što sam mislio da znam o prevarama bilo pogrešno, i večeras ću vam reći nešto od toga.
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.
Čak se i način na koji komuniciramo od te 1995., 1996. godine potpuno promenio. Sada koristimo imejl, SMS, Skajp, Fejsbuk. Potpuno ludilo. Gotovo svaki aspekt ljudske komunikacije se promenio, i naravno, to je imalo uticaja na obmane. Dozvolite da vam ispričam ponešto o novim vrstama prevara koje smo pratili i zabeležiili. Nazvani su Batler, Marioneta i Kineska mornarica. Pomalo zvuči kao čudna knjiga, ali to su zapravo sve nove vrste laži.
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.
Počnimo sa Batlerima. Evo jednog primera: "Na putu sam." Da li je ikad iko napisao: "Na putu sam?" Onda ste takođe slagali. (Smeh) Nikada nismo na putu. Razmišljamo o tome da krenemo. Evo još jedne: "Izvini što nisam ranije odgovorio. Crkla mi je baterija." Baterija vam nije crkla. Niste bili van dometa. Samo niste tada hteli da odgovorite toj osobi. Evo poslednje: pričate sa nekim i kažete: "Izvini, imam posla, moram da idem." Ali vam je u stvari samo dosadno. Želite da pričate s nekim drugim. Svaka od ovih laži govori o odnosu koji imate, a ovo je svet u kojem smo povezani stalno. Kada jednom nabavite broj mog mobilnog telefona, možete bukvalno da budete u kontaktu sa mnom 24 časa dnevno. Dakle, ove laži ljudi koriste kako bi stvorili tampon zonu, kao što je batler nekada bio između nas i svih ostalih. No one su veoma posebne. Koriste dvosmislenost koja proističe iz korišćenja tehnologije. Ne znaš gde sam, šta radim, sa kim sam. I usmerene su na očuvanje veza. Nije stvar u tome da su ljudi kreteni. Oni govore: "Slušaj, ne želim sada da pričam sa tobom" ili "Nisam hteo da pričam sa tobom onda, ali mi je i dalje stalo do tebe. Naš odnos je i dalje važan".
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.
Sa druge strane, Marioneta je potpuno drugačija. Tu se ne radi o dvosmislenosti samoj po sebi. Radi se o identitetu. Daću vam jedan svež primer, od prošle nedelje. Evo R. Dž. Elerija, autora bestselera u Velikoj Britaniji. Evo jedne od njegovih najprodavanijih knjiga. Evo onlajn kritike, na Amazonu. Moja omiljena, od autora Nikodemusa Džounsa, je: "Kakav god efekat da ostavi, svakako će vam dotaći dušu". I naravno, možete već pretpostaviti, Nikodemus Džous je R. Dž. Eleri. Napisao je veoma, veoma pozitivne kritike samome sebi. Gle iznenađenja.
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.
Ova prevara, Marioneta, zapravo nije toliko nova. Volt Vitman je takođe ovo radio nekada davno, pre nego što je postojala internet tehnologija. Marioneta postaje zanimljiva kada dođemo do većih razmera, što je domen Kineske mornarice. Odnosi se na hiljade ljudi u Kini koji su slabo plaćeni za kreiranje sadržaja. To mogu biti kritike, to može biti propaganda. Vlada zapošljava ove ljude, kompanije ih zapošljavaju, posvuda. U Severnoj Americi, mi to nazivamo astroturfingom. To je sada veoma učestalo i mnogi se brinu oko toga. Ovo vidimo naročito u ocenama proizvoda, književnim kritikama, svuda od hotela do toga da li je neki toster dobar ili nije.
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?
Posmatrajući ove tri kritike ili tri tipa prevare, možete pomisliti, internet nas zaista pretvara u obmanjujuću vrstu, naročito kada pomislite na astroturfing, kada vidimo obmanu tako velikih razmera. Ali u stvari, ono što sam ja pronalazio je veoma drugačije od toga. Hajde sad da ostavimo po strani onlajn anonimno seks četovanje, za šta sam siguran da niko od vas nije iskusio. Uveravam vas da tu ima obmana. I hajde da ostavimo po strani nigerijskog princa koji vam je poslao imejl da iznesete 43 miliona iz zemlje. (Smeh) Zaboravimo i na tog tipa. Fokusirajmo se na svoje razgovore sa prijateljima, porodicom, kolegama na poslu i svojim voljenima. To su razgovori koji su zaista bitni. Šta tehnologija radi sa obmanom kod ovih ljudi?
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.
Evo nekoliko istraživanja. Neke od studija koje vršimo se zovu studije dnevnika, u kojima tražimo da ljudi snimaju sve svoje razgovore i sve svoje laži u toku sedam dana, i onda možemo da izračunamo koliko je laži prisutno po razgovoru u okviru jednog medija, i nalaz koji najviše iznenađuje ljude jeste taj da je imejl najiskreniji od ta tri medija. To zaista šokira ljude jer mislimo, nema neverbalnih znakova, pa zašto se onda ne laže više? Telefon, nasuprot tome, najviše laži. Iznova i iznova i iznova vidimo da je telefon naprava preko koje ljudi najviše lažu, možda zbog dvosmislenosti Batler laži o kojima sam vam govorio.
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.
Ovo ume da bude veoma drugačije od onoga što ljudi očekuju. Šta je sa biografijama? Obavili smo istraživanje u kome su se ljudi prijavljivali za posao, i mogli su da se prijave za posao bilo sa tradicionalnom biografijom na papiru, ili putem LinkedIn-a, što je sajt društvene mreže poput Fejsbuka ali za profesionalce - sadrži iste informacije kao biografija. I otkrili smo, na iznenađenje mnogih, da su LinkedIn biografije bile iskrenije u vezi stvari koje su bile bitne poslodavcima, kao što su vaša odgovornost ili vaše veštine ili vaš prethodni posao.
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.
Šta je sa samim Fejsbukom? Znate, uvek mislimo, tu su idealizovane verzije, ljudi samo pokazuju najbolje stvari koje su se desile u njihovim životima. Često sam to mislio. Moji prijatelji, nema šanse da mogu da budu tako kul i imaju dobar život. Pa, jedna studija je ovo testirala ispitivanjem ličnosti ljudi. Imali su četiri dobra prijatelja i osobu koja procenjuje njihovu ličnost. Onda su imali strance, mnogo stranaca, koji procenjuju ličnost osobe samo sa Fejsbuka. Otkrili su da su te procene ličnosti bile prilično identične, visoko korelirajuće, što znači da Fejsbuk profili zaista odražavaju našu stvarnu ličnost.
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.
Dobro, a šta je sa onlajn zabavljanjem? Mislim, to je prilično obmanjujuć prostor. Siguran sam da svi vi imate "prijatelje" koji su koristili onlajn zabavljanje. (Smeh) Oni bi vam pričali o tipu koji nije imao kose kada je došao, ili ženi koja uopšte nije izgledala kao na fotografiji. Stvarno smo se zainteresovali za to, i tako smo doveli ljude koji koriste onlajn zabavljanje u laboratoriju, i zatim smo ih izmerili. Dobili smo njihovu visinu naslonivši ih na zid, stavili ih na vagu, dobili njihovu težinu - damama se to baš svidelo - i zatim smo uzeli njihove vozačke dozvole da bismo saznali njihove godine. I ono što smo pronašli je bilo veoma, veoma zanimljivo. Evo primera muškaraca i visine. Donja linija predstavlja koliko su rekli da su visoki na profilu. Linija y-ose, vertikalne ose, odnosi se na to koliko su stvarno visoki. Ta dijagonalna linija je linija istine. Ako je njihova tačka na njoj, govorili su upravo istinu. Sad, kao što vidite, većina tačkica je ispod linije. To znači da su svi momci lagali o svojoj visini. Zapravo, lagali su o svojoj visini za oko 2,3 cm, ono što mi u laboratoriji zovemo "jako zaokruživanje". (Smeh) Dođete do 177 cm, i bum! 180 cm. Ali ono što je stvarno važno ovde je, pogledajte sve te tačke. Grupišu se prilično blizu istine. Ono što smo otkrili je da je 80 procenata naših učesnika zaista lagalo na jednoj od tih dimenzija, ali su uvek lagali malčice. Jedan od razloga je prilično jednostavan. Ako odete na sastanak, kafu, i potpuno ste drugačiji nego što ste rekli, igra je završena. Zar ne? Dakle ljudi su lagali učestalo, ali su lagali suptilno, ne previše. Obuzdavali su se.
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?
Pa, šta objašnjavaju sva ta istraživanja? Šta objašnjava činjenica da uprkos našim intuicijama, uključujući moju, veliki deo onlajn komunikacije, tehnološki posredovane komunikacija, je iskrenije nego lice u lice? To je stvarno čudno. Kako ovo objašnjavamo?
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.
Pa, da bismo to uradili, možemo pogledati literaturu o otkrivanju obmane. To je sada veoma stara literatura, ima skoro 50 godina. Razmatrana je mnogo puta. Izvršene su hiljade provera, stotine istraživanja, i ima nekih zaista ubedljivih nalaza.
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.
Prvi je: mi smo stvarno loši u otkrivanju obmana, zaista loši. 54 procenata tačnosti u proseku kada treba da odredite da li neko ko je upravo izneo tvrdnju laže ili ne. To je stvarno loše. Zašto je to tako loše? Pa, ima neke veze sa Pinokiovim nosem. Ako bih vas pitao na šta se oslanjate kada gledate nekoga i želite da otkrijete da li lažu, na koje znake obraćate pažnju, većina vas bi rekla da su oči jedan od znakova koje gledate. Oči su ogledalo duše. I niste jedini. Širom sveta, u skoro svakoj kulturi, oči su među glavnim znakovima. Ali istraživanja tokom poslednjih 50 godina govore da zapravo nema pouzdanih znakova obmane, što me je šokiralo, i to je jedna od teških lekcija koju sam naučio dok sam bio carinik. Oči nam ne govore da li nas neko laže ili ne. U nekim situacijama, da - visokim rizicima, možda im se zenice rašire, povisi im se ton, telesni pokreti se malčice promene, ali ne uvek, ne kod svakoga, nije pouzdano. Čudno. Druga stvar je da samo zato što ne možete da me vidite, ne znači da ću lagati. To je zdrav razum, ali jedan važan nalaz jeste da lažemo sa razlogom. Lažemo da bismo se zaštitili, zarad sopstvenih ciljeva, ili ciljeva nekog drugog. Postoje poneki patološki lažovi, ali oni čine mali deo populacije. Mi lažemo sa razlogom. Samo zato što nas ljudi ne vide, ne znači nužno da ćemo lagati.
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.
Ali mislim da se zapravo mnogo više toga interesantnog i fundamentalnog ovde dešava. Sledeću veliku stvar za mene, sledeću veliku ideju, možemo pronaći vraćajući se nazad kroz istoriju do korena jezika. Većina lingvista se slaže da smo počeli da govorimo pre oko negde između 50 000 i 100 00 godina. To je pre mnogo vremena. Mnogo ljudi je živelo od tada. Pričali smo, pretpostavljam, o vatrama i pećinama i sabljozubim tigrovima. Ne znam o čemu su pričali, ali su dosta pričali, i kao što sam rekao, mnogo je ljudi razvilo govor, oko 100 milijardu ljudi zapravo. Ono što je važno je da se pisanje pojavilo tek pre oko 5 000 godina. Dakle to znači da svi ljudi pre nego što je bilo pisanja, svaka reč koju su ikada rekli, svaki iskaz je nestao. Bez traga. Iščezao. Propao. Evoluirali smo da govorimo na način u kome nema zapisa. Zapravo, čak i naredna velika promena u pisanju je bila tek pre oko 500 godina, sa štamparskom presom, što je veoma sveže u našoj prošlosti, i stope pismenosti su ostale neverovatno niske sve do Drugog svetskog rata, tako da čak i ljudi poslednja dva milenijuma, većina reči koje su ikada izgovorili - puf! - nestale su.
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.
Hajde da se vratimo sadašnjosti, umreženom dobu. Koliko vas je danas nešto zabeležilo? Da li je iko nešto zapisao danas? Da li je bilo ko napisao reč? Izgleda da je skoro svaka osoba ovde nešto zabeležila. U ovoj sobi, baš sada, mi smo verovatno zabeležili više nego skoro cela ljudska praistorija. To je ludo. Ulazimo u neverovatan period protoka u ljudskoj evoluciji gde smo se razvili da govorimo na način u kome naše reči nestaju, ali smo u sredini gde sve snimamo. U stvari, mislim da u veoma bliskoj budućnosti, neće samo ono što zapišemo biti snimljeno, sve što činimo biće zabeleženo. Šta to znači? Koje sledeća velika ideja proizilazi iz toga? Pa, kao sociolog, ovo je najneverovatnija stvar o kojoj sam ikada maštao. Sada mogu da pogledam sve te reči koje su milenijumima nestajale. Mogu da pogledam laži koje su ranije izgovorene i zatim nestale. Sećate se astroturfing kritika o kojima smo ranije govorili? Pa, kada napišu lažnu kritiku, moraju da je negde objave, i ona tu ostaje za nas.
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.
Stvar koju smo uradili, a daću vam primer promatranja jezika, jeste da smo platili ljudima da napišu neke lažne kritike. Jedna od ovih kritika je lažna. Osoba nikada nije bila u Džejms hotelu. Druga kritika je istinita. Osoba je boravila tamo. Vaš zadatak sada je da odlučite koja kritika je lažna. Daću vam momenat da ih iščitate. Ali želim da svi podignu svoju ruku u nekom trenutku. Setite se, ja izučavam obmanu. Mogu da zaključim da niste podigli ruku. U redu, koliko vas veruje da je A laž? U redu. Veoma dobro. Oko polovine. A koliko vas misli da je to B? U redu. Malo više za B. Odlično. Evo odgovora. B je laž. Bravo za drugu grupu. Dominirali ste nad prvom grupom. (Smeh) Vi ste zapravo malo neobični. Svaki put kada ovo demonstriramo, obično bude podela 50-50, što odgovara istraživanju, 54 procenata. Možda su ovde u Vinipegu ljudi sumnjičaviji i bolji u otkrivanju. Te hladne, duge zime, obožavam ih.
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.
Dobro, pa zašto bi mene bilo briga? Pa, ono što mogu da sada učinim sa svojim kolegama u informatici je da kreiramo kompjuterske algoritme koji mogu da analiziraju lingvističke tragove prevare. Dozvolite mi da ovde istaknem nekoliko stvari u lažnoj kritici. Prva je da su lažovi skloni da misle o narativu. Oni izmišljaju priču: ko i šta se dogodilo, a to se desilo i ovde. Naši lažni kritičari su govorili o tome sa kim su bili i šta su radili. Takođe su koristili prvo lice jednine, ja, mnogo više nego ljudi koji su zaista tamo boravili. Unosili su sebe u kritiku hotela, kao da pokušavaju da vas ubede da su bili tamo. Nasuprot tome, ljudi koji su pisali kritike a koji su zaista bili tamo, njihova tela su zapravo ušla u fizički prostor, mnogo više su govorili o prostornim podacima. Rekli su koliko je bilo kupatilo, ili su rekli, znate, evo koliko su prodavnice daleko od hotela.
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.
Vi ste ovo prilično dobro uradili. Većina ljudi obavlja ovaj zadatak na sreću. Naš kompjuterski algoritam je vrlo precizan, mnogo precizniji nego što to ljudi mogu biti, a neće uvek biti precizan. Ovo nije mašina za otkrivanje obmane koja otkriva da li vas devojka laže u SMS poruci. Verujemo da svaka laž, svaki tip laži - lažne hotelske kritike, lažne kritike cipela, vaša devojka koja vas obmanjuje u poruci - sve su to različite laži. Imaće različite jezičke šablone. Ali zato što se danas sve snima, možemo da pregledamo sve te vrste laži.
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.
Sad, kao što sam rekao, kao sociolog, ovo je divno. To je transformišuće. Bićemo u mogućnosti da naučimo toliko toga dodatnog o ljudskim mislima i izražavanju, o svemu od ljubavi do stavova, jer se sada sve snima, ali šta to znači za prosečnog građanina? Šta to znači za nas u našim životima? Hajde da na kratko zaboravimo na prevare. Jedna od velikih ideja, ja smatram, je da ostavljamo za sobom velike tragove. Moje otpremno sanduče za imejl je ogromno, i nikada ga ne gledam. Stalno pišem, ali nikada ne gledam svoje zapise, svoje tragove. I mislim da ćemo mnogo više toga tek viđati, tako da ćemo moći da se osvrnemo na ono što jesmo gledajući ono što smo napisali, rekli, uradili.
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)
Ako se vratimo obmani, ovde postoji nekoliko stvari za poneti. Prvo, lagati na internetu može biti veoma opasno, zar ne? Ne samo da ostavljate zapis za sebe na svojoj mašini, već ostavljate zapis osobi koju ste lagali, i takođe ih ostavljate za mene da ih analiziram nekim kompjuterskim algoritmima. Dakle, svakako samo napred i uradite to, u redu je. Ali kada se radi o laganju i tome šta želimo da uradimo sa svojim životima, mislim da možemo da se vratimo Diogenu i Konfučiju. A oni su se manje bavili time da li lagati ili ne, a više ih je zanimalo biti iskren prema sebi, i mislim da je ovo stvarno važno. Kada treba da kažete ili uradite nešto, možemo pomisliti: "Da li želim da ovo bude deo moje zaostavštine, deo mojih ličnih zapisa?" Jer u digitalnom dobu u kome danas živimo, u umreženom dobu, svi mi ostavljamo zapise. Hvala vam puno na vašem vremenu, i srećno sa vašim zapisom. (Aplauz)