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.
我和你们说,这个月的骗局可真不少。 我甚至不是在谈论美国的总统竞选。(笑声) 一个知名的记者因为抄袭被抓起来了; 一个年轻著名作家所写的书 因捏造了很多旁人引述而被下架了; 纽约时报出现了虚假书评。 不少吧。
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?
当然,不是所有的骗局都会上新闻。 很多骗局是每天都会发生的。事实上,很多研究 显示我们每天撒谎一到两次,正如Dave说的。 现在约六点三十分,意味着我们大多数人都撒了谎。 让我们看一看,你们中有多少人 在过去的24小时里——回想一下,撒了小谎, 甚至说了弥天大谎?这里有谁说了小谎呢?
All right, good. These are all the liars. Make sure you pay attention to them. (Laughter)
好吧,很好,这些都是撒谎的人。 确保你们要留心他们。(笑声)
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.
不错,大约有三分之二的人。 剩下那三分之一的人没有撒谎,或也许是忘了, 或是你们对我撒谎,说你们没撒谎,这真的非常, 非常狡猾。(笑声)这正好符合了大量的研究, 表明撒谎是无处不在的。 正是它的普遍性结合 人类以自我为中心的特点——我们可以 说实话,或编些谎言 长久以来都让人们为之着迷。 有个典故,第欧根尼和他的灯笼。 有人知道他在找什么吗? 一个老实人,直到死去在希腊都找不到另一个老实人 在东方我们有孔子, 他所关心的真挚 不仅能说到做到, 还要坚信自己在做的事。 坚信自己的原则。
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.
我第一次在工作上面对骗局, 比这些人要晚一些,晚了几千年。 90年代中期,我那时是加拿大的海关人员。 是的,我那时在捍卫加拿大边境。 你可能会觉得我是拿着武器的。事实上, 我拿的是印章。我通过印章来捍卫加拿大的边境。(笑声) 我太有加拿大特色了。我学到了很多关于骗局的事, 正是在我在海关工作的时候。 其中一个就是,我对骗局的了解大部分都是错误的 今晚我会和你们分享其中的一些。
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.
自从1995,1996年,我们的沟通方式 已经完全改变,我们发电邮,发信息 我们聊skype,我们玩Facebook。这简直是疯了。 几乎人类沟通的每一个方面都已经发生了变化, 当然这些对骗局的类型也有所影响。 让我告诉你一些我们一直在做跟踪和记录的 一些新的骗局类型 有三种,管家模式,马甲模式 中国水军模式。 这些听起来像是奇怪的书名, 但其实他们是新的谎言类型。
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.
先从管家模式开始,这里有个例子。 “在路上”,所有人都这么用过,“在路上?” 你是撒了谎吧。(笑声) 我们还没有在路上呢,我们只是想着要出门。 这里还有一个:“抱歉,我没有早点给你回复。 我的电池‘死’光了。”你的电池才没用完呢。 你不是在阵亡区 你只是那时不想回复那个人罢了。 最后一个:你和某人在聊天, 然后你说,“抱歉,要工作了,挂了。” 实际上是你觉得没意思,你想找别的人聊天。 我提到的每一条都是和人际关系有关的。 现在是24小时紧密连接的世界。一旦你有了我的手机号码, 你可以说是一天24小时都能和我联系。 这些谎言都被人们用作 缓冲物,就像管家一样, 缓冲着我们和其他人的关系。 它们很特别,因为它们含糊不清, 用技术为借口。你不知道 我在哪里或我在做什么或我和谁在一起。 它们旨在保护人际关系。 这些人并不是在做混蛋,这些人 说,听着,我现在不想和你说话, 或我那时不想和你说话,但我还是会关心你。 我们的关系还是很重要。
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.
现在谈谈马甲模式。 这是完全不同的方式。马甲模式不是利用 语言的模棱两可,它是关于身份的。 让我给你们讲一个最近的例子。 比方说,上个星期, 有一个R•J•埃洛里,他是英国的畅销书作家。 这是他其中一本畅销书。 这是亚马逊的在线书评。 我的最爱,写自尼科德摩•琼斯, “这本书绝无仅有,它会触动你的灵魂。” 当然,你也许会怀疑 尼科德摩•琼斯就是R•J•埃洛里。 他给自己写了非常非常好的书评。真叫人意外,意外。
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.
马甲模式其实不是最新的, 沃尔特 • 惠特曼很早就这么做了。 那时互联网技术还没出现。马甲模式 一旦上了规模,就变得有趣起来了, 这就是中国水军模式。 中国水军模式指的是成千上万的人, 他们在中国收取小额费用, 来编造内容。可以是评论,可以是 宣传。政府雇用这些人, 公司雇用这些人,到处都有。 在北美,我们把它叫作造势, 现在造势很普遍。引起了很多关注。 造势很常见,尤其在产品评价,书评, 一切东西,从酒店到吐司机好不好用。
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?
现在看看这三种评论,或者这三种骗局类型, 你也许会想,哇,互联网真的把我们变成了 爱说谎的物种,尤其当你想到 造势,也就是达到一定规模的骗局。 可事实上,我发现的东西并不是如此。 现在,让我们先抛开在线匿名性聊天室, 我肯定你们中没有人参与过, 我保证这里面一定有人撒谎。 让我们抛开尼日利亚王子给你写邮件说 想把4300万元转移出国。(笑声) 我们也别提那个人了。 让我们一起关注我们和朋友间的对话 和我们亲人,我们的同事,心爱的人的对话。 那些才是真正重要的对话。 技术在欺骗这些人的时候起了什么作用呢?
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.
这里有一些研究,其中一个研究,我们 叫作日志研究,我们让人们记录 七天里他们所有的日常对话,和说过的所有谎话, 然后我们计算同一种媒介里的每段谈话 一共有多少谎言,我们发现 最让我们很吃惊的是,人们使用电子邮件时 是在使用三种媒介中最诚实的。 这真让人意想不到是因为我们认为, 写邮件并没有任何口头线索,为什么不会更容易撒谎呢? 相比之下,电话里有最多的谎言。 一次又一次地,我们发现人们使用电话这种设备时 说的谎话最多,也许是因为之前我告诉过你们的那个管家模式的含糊语言。 这真的和人们的预期很不一样。
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.
那么简历又如何呢?我们做了个研究, 让人们申请工作,他们可以 通过传统的纸质简历申请,或通过LinkedIn申请 也就是类似Facebook的社交网络, 但它是专门给专业人士的—要填写简历一样的内容。 我们发现,让很多人意外的是, 在LinkedIn上的简历倾向于 在雇主看重的问题上有着更诚实的信息, 比如有关你上一份工作的工作职责和个人技能。
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.
Facebook本身又如何呢? 我们常想,在这些 理想化的情形下,人们只是在展示他们生活中最好的东西。 我想了又想。 我的朋友们不可能那么酷,过着这么好的生活。 有一个研究通过分析人们的个性来判断这一点。 先找来被测试对象的四个好朋友,让他们判断这个人的个性。 再让陌生人,找来很多陌生人, 通过被测试者的Facebook页面来判断这个人的个性。 结果是这些人对这个人的个性判断 非常一致,高度相关, 意味着Facebook页面真的反映了人的真实个性。
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.
好,那么在线约会如何? 这里面有很大的欺骗空间。 我肯定你们全都有“朋友”试过在线约会。(笑声) 那个男士出现的时候才知道他秃头了, 这个女士和她的档案照片完全不像。 我们对此非常有兴趣,于是我们就, 我们把这些在线约会的人们,带进实验室。 我们测量了他们,我们让他们靠墙站着量身高, 让他们站在秤上量体重 —— 女士们可“喜欢”这么做了——然后,我们拿到他们的驾照得知他们的年龄。 我们发现了非常非常有趣的事。 下面是一个例子,关于男士和他们的身高。 水平轴是他们在介绍里宣称的高度, Y轴,垂直轴,是他们真实的高度 对角线是真理线。如果他们的点在线上, 他们讲的完全是实话。 你们可以看到,大部分的小点都落在线下面 也就是说所有的男士都谎报了自己的身高。 事实上,他们会在0.9寸上撒谎, 说是“强进制”(笑声) 如果你是5尺8寸又0.1寸,啪!就是5尺9寸。 但这里真正重要的是,看看所有那些点。 他们是聚集在离实话非常近的地方。我们发现 80%的参与者确实是撒了谎, 在这个层面上是如此,但他们却只是撒了一点点谎。 其中一个原因是很简单。如果你出去约会, 去喝咖啡,你完全不是你所说的那个人, 游戏结束了,不是吗?所以虽然人们常撒谎,但他们 只是撒点小谎,不会差太多。人们很节制。
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?
这些研究都说明了什么? 为什么 虽然我们的本性如此(会撒谎),包括我的, 然而很多的在线沟通,技术媒介沟通 比面对面的交流更诚实? 这真的和奇怪。我们该如何解释呢?
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.
要做到这一点,我们可以看看揭谎研究。 这是很久以前的研究了,大概是在50年前开始出现。 人们探讨过它许多次,经过了数千次的验证, 和数百次的研究,也得出了一些让人折服的发现。
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.
首先,我们真的不擅长辨识谎言。 非常不擅长。如果你要判断人们说的是不是谎话, 平均准确率只有54%。 真的是很糟糕。为什么会这么糟糕? 好,可能和匹诺曹的鼻子有些关系。 如果我问你,你靠什么判断呢, 当你通过看着别人并想判断 别人是否在撒谎?你会关注什么线索? 你们大多数人说你们看别人找线索的时候, 会看眼睛。因为眼睛是灵魂之窗。 这么想的不止你一个。全世界,几乎每一种文化, 首要的线索之一都是眼睛。但是, 过去50年的研究表明,并没有真正可靠的线索 来判断人们是否撒谎,真让我非常意外, 当我还是海关人员的时候,我也有过这样深刻的教训。 看眼睛不会让你知道那个人有没撒谎。 有的情况是可以靠眼睛判断,高风险的时候,也许他们的瞳孔会放大, 音调会升高,身体动作会有一点变化, 但不是所有情况都如此,不是所有人都一样,所以是不可靠的。 奇怪吧。其次是,仅仅因为你看不到我 也不表明我就会撒谎。这是常识。 但一个很重要的发现是,我们撒谎都是有某种原因的。 我们为了保护自己或为了自身的利益, 或他人的利益而撒谎。 有一些人病理性撒谎,但他们只占 人口总数的小部分。我们是为了某种原因撒谎。 仅仅因为别人看不到我们不意味着 我们必须撒谎。
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.
但是我认为,事实上应有一些 更有趣,更本质的原因。 我下一个宏大构想,就是通过 追溯语言的起源来寻找答案。 大部分的语言学家都认为我们大概于 五至十万年前开始出现语言。那是很久很久以前。 之后存活过很多人。 人们交谈,我猜想,谈论火,洞穴, 甚至剑齿虎。我不知道他们究竟谈过什么。 但人们谈论了许多,正如我说 人与人的交流在不断地演变。 事实上有大概有一千亿人参与其中。 关键点在于,书写只有在 五千年前才开始出现。这就意味着 在人类开始学会记录之前, 人们说过的每个词,每句话, 都消失了,没有踪影,一去不返了。 所以我们说话的方式一直在演变, 但是却没有任何记录。事实上,尽管给书写带来巨大变化 距今也已有是500年, 然而随着印刷媒体的出现, 直到第二次世界大战,人们的识字率仍然非常低, 因此,即使是过去2000年的人们, 他们说过的大多数话语 ——呼!消失了。
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.
现在我们回到现在带网络时代。 你们中有多少人今天记录了什么? 有谁写了点东西?有谁写过一个字吗? 似乎几乎在座的每一位都记录了些什么。 在这屋子里,我们记录的东西也许 几乎比所有人类史前历史记录的还要多。 真的是疯了。我们进入了人类进化洪流的美妙时期, 我们已经进化到 说话渐渐不需要言语, 而我们已经身处在一个一直在记录事情的环境中。 事实上,我认为,在不久的将来, 我们不止会记录我们写的东西,我们所做的一切 都会被记录下来。 那是什么意思?下一个宏大构想是什么? 作为一个社会科学家, 我所梦想过最奇妙的事,就是现在我可以 研究那些几千年前曾经被用过最终消失的文字。 我可以研究曾经出现又消失的谎言。 你还记得我们之前谈论高的那些造势评论吗? 当人们编造虚假评论时, 他们要在某个地方发表,这样就给我们留下了记录。
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.
我来给你们举个例子, 看看我们是如何观察语言的, 我们付钱让人编造一些假评论。这些评论中有一篇是假的。 其中一个人从没有入住过詹姆斯酒店。 另一个评论是真的。这个人真的在那住过。 你们现在要决定 哪一篇评论是假的? 大家花点时间读一读。 到某个时候,我想让每个人举手表态。 记住,我研究骗局。即使你不做选择我也能看出来。 好,你们有多少人认为A是假的? 好,非常好。大概一半人。 多少人认为B是假的? 好,选B的稍微多一些。 很好。这是答案。 B 是假的。干得好,第二组。你们赢了第一组。(笑声) 你们有点不寻常。我们每次展示这个的时候, 通常都是50-50对半, 这符合我们的研究结果,54%。 也许在温伯尔德的各位更谨慎,也更能找出答案。 我喜欢这里严寒的冬天。
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.
好吧,那么为什么我关心这个结果? 我和我的同事运用电脑科学 设计电脑计算法来分析 骗局的文字痕迹。 让我在此重点讲几点我们从虚假评论找到的东西 首先,说谎的人趋向于 着重叙事性。他们会编造故事: 都有谁?发生了什么事?这里就是如此。 我们的假评人谈到他们和谁在一起, 在做什么。他们也会用第一人称,”我“ 远远多于真正在那里住过的人。 他们会把自己强加到酒店评论里面, 想试图说服你们,好像他们真的在那里过。 相反,那些真实入住过的人写评论时, 因为他们的身体真的进入过那个物理空间, 他们会谈更多空间方面的信息。 他们会说浴室有多大,或者他们会说, 购物的地方离酒店有多远。
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.
所以,你们做得很好。大多数人只会随机选择。 我们的电脑计算法是非常准确的, 远远准确于人脑,但它也不会一直都是对的。 这不是一部测谎机 用来判断你的女朋友有没有在你们的短信上撒谎。 我们相信现在所有的谎言,所有类型的谎言—— 假的酒店评论,假的鞋子评论, 你的女朋友对你不忠并用信息欺骗你—— 那些都是不同类型的谎言。 它们有不同的语言模式。但因为现在 一切东西都被记录下来了,我们可以分析各种各样的谎言。
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.
正如我所说,作为一个社会科学家,这棒极了。 具有变革意义。我们可以 更多地了解人类的想法和表达, 从爱到态度等一切事情, 因为现在一切都被记录着,但是 这对普通人有什么意义? 对我们的生活有什么意义? 我们暂时不谈骗局。谈谈我的宏大构想的其中一个, 我们留下了巨大的痕迹。 我的电邮发信箱有大量邮件信息, 但我从来不看。我一直在写东西, 但我从来不看我的记录,我留下的痕迹。 我想,我们会对自己有更多地了解, 通过看看我们写过什么,说过什么,做过什么, 我们更好地认识自己。
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)
如果我们现在再看看骗局这个问题, 我简单谈谈几点。 首先,在线撒谎可能会很危险不是吗? 你不光在自己的电脑留下记录, 你也在被撒谎对象那里留下记录, 你还留下记录让我作分析。 让我用电脑作运算。 所以,请继续,尽管撒谎,好极了。 当我们谈到撒谎和我们的生活, 我想我们可以回到 第欧根尼和孔子身上。他们很少考虑 去撒谎或不去撒谎,他们更关注 要忠于自己,我想这是非常重要的。 当你准备说什么或做什么, 我们可以这么想,我想让它成为我的遗迹的一部分吗, 想让它成为我个人记录的一部分吗? 因为在我们生活的这个数码时代, 网络时代,我们一直都在留下记录。 谢谢你们的聆听, 祝你们记录愉快。(掌声)