Okay, nu vil jeg ikke forskrække nogen i lokalet, men jeg er lige blevet klar over, at personen til højre for dig er en løgner. (Latter) Derudover, er personen til venstre for dig en løgner. Og personen der sidder i dit sæde er en løgner. Vi er alle løgnere. Det jeg vil gøre i dag, er at jeg vil vise jeg hvad forskningen siger om, hvorfor vi er løgnere, hvordan man kan blive en der spotter løgnere og hvorfor man måske vil give det sidste og gå fra at spotte løgnere til at søge sandheden, og til i sidste ende at opbygge tillid.
Okay, now I don't want to alarm anybody in this room, but it's just come to my attention that the person to your right is a liar. (Laughter) Also, the person to your left is a liar. Also the person sitting in your very seats is a liar. We're all liars. What I'm going to do today is I'm going to show you what the research says about why we're all liars, how you can become a liespotter and why you might want to go the extra mile and go from liespotting to truth seeking, and ultimately to trust building.
Nu vi taler om tillid, lige siden jeg skrev denne bog, "Liespotting," ingen vil møde mig personligt mere, nej, nej, nej, nej, nej. De siger, "Det er okay, vi sender dig en email." (Latter) Jeg kan ikke engang få en date til kaffe på Starbucks. Min mand siger, "Skat, bedrag? Måske du kunne have fokuseret på madlavning? Hvad med fransk madlavning?"
Now, speaking of trust, ever since I wrote this book, "Liespotting," no one wants to meet me in person anymore, no, no, no, no, no. They say, "It's okay, we'll email you." (Laughter) I can't even get a coffee date at Starbucks. My husband's like, "Honey, deception? Maybe you could have focused on cooking. How about French cooking?"
Så før jeg går i gang, det jeg vil gøre er, at jeg vil afklare mit mål for jer, som ikke er at lære et spil fik-dig. Dem der spotter løgne er ikke de børn der kommer med smålig kritik, de børn der sidder bagerst i lokalet og råber, "Fik dig! Fik dig! Dit øjenbryn spjættede. Du flagrede med næseboret. Jeg ser det TV show 'Lie To Me'. Jeg ved at du lyver." Nej, dem der spotter løgne er bevæbnede med videnskabelig indsigt til hvordan man spotter bedrag. De bruger det til at finde frem til sandheden, og de gør det, som modne ledere gør hver dag; de har vanskelige samtaler med vanskelige mennesker, nogle gange i vanskelige tider. Og de går hen ad den vej ved at acceptere en kerne holdning, og den holdning er det følgende: At lyve er en samarbejdende handling. Tænk over det, en løgn har ikke noget magt overhovedet, når den kun bliver ytret. Dens magt opstår, når en anden indvilliger i at tro på den.
So before I get started, what I'm going to do is I'm going to clarify my goal for you, which is not to teach a game of Gotcha. Liespotters aren't those nitpicky kids, those kids in the back of the room that are shouting, "Gotcha! Gotcha! Your eyebrow twitched. You flared your nostril. I watch that TV show 'Lie To Me.' I know you're lying." No, liespotters are armed with scientific knowledge of how to spot deception. They use it to get to the truth, and they do what mature leaders do everyday; they have difficult conversations with difficult people, sometimes during very difficult times. And they start up that path by accepting a core proposition, and that proposition is the following: Lying is a cooperative act. Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance. Its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie.
Så jeg ved det måske lyder som hård kærlighed, men se, hvis man på et tidspunkt er blev løjet for, er det fordi man indvilligede i at blive løjet for. Sandhed nummer et om at lyve: At lyve er en samarbejdende handling. Nu er det ikke alle løgne der er skadelige. Nogen gange er vi villige til at deltage i bedrag for den sociale værdigheds skyld, måske at holde en hemmelighed der skal holdes hemmelig, hemmelig. Vi siger, "God sang." "Skat, du ser ikke tyk ud i det, nej." Eller vi siger, digirattiens favorit, "Du ved, jeg fiskede lige den email ud af mit spam filter. Det må du undskylde."
So I know it may sound like tough love, but look, if at some point you got lied to, it's because you agreed to get lied to. Truth number one about lying: Lying's a cooperative act. Now not all lies are harmful. Sometimes we're willing participants in deception for the sake of social dignity, maybe to keep a secret that should be kept secret, secret. We say, "Nice song." "Honey, you don't look fat in that, no." Or we say, favorite of the digiratti, "You know, I just fished that email out of my Spam folder. So sorry."
Men der er tider, når vi er uvillige deltagere i bedrag. Og det kan have dramatiske omkostninger for os. Sidste år endte 997 milliarder dollars som selskabssvindel i USA. Det er meget lidt under en billion dollars. Det er syv procent af indtægterne. Bedrag kan koste milliarder. Tænk på Enron, Madoff, boligkrisen. Eller med hensyn til dobbeltagenter og forrædere, som Robert Hanssen eller Aldrich Ames, løgne kan forråde vores land, de kan kompromittere vores sikkerhed, de kan underminere demokratiet, den kan forårsage døden over dem der forsvarer os.
But there are times when we are unwilling participants in deception. And that can have dramatic costs for us. Last year saw 997 billion dollars in corporate fraud alone in the United States. That's an eyelash under a trillion dollars. That's seven percent of revenues. Deception can cost billions. Think Enron, Madoff, the mortgage crisis. Or in the case of double agents and traitors, like Robert Hanssen or Aldrich Ames, lies can betray our country, they can compromise our security, they can undermine democracy, they can cause the deaths of those that defend us.
Bedrag er faktisk en alvorlig sag. Denne svindler, Henry Oberlander, han var så effektiv en svindler, at britiske myndigheder siger, at han kunne have undermineret hele banksystemet i den vestlige verden. Og man kan ikke finde denne fyr på Google; man kan ikke finde ham nogen steder. Han blev interviewet én gang, og han sagde det følgende. Han sagde, "Hør engang, jeg har en regel." Og dette var Henrys regel, sagde han, "Hør engang, alle er villige til at give en noget. De er klar til at give en noget, for hvad end de nu er sultne efter." Og det er kernen i det. Hvis man ikke vil bedrages, skal man vide, hvad er det man er sulten efter? Og vi hader allesammen at indrømme det. Vi ville ønske vi var bedre ægtemænd, koner, klogere, mere magtfulde, højere, rigere -- listen fortsætter. Det at lyve prøver på at slå bro henover det mellemrum, for at forbinde vores ønsker og vores fantasier om den vi ønsker vi var, hvordan vi ønsker vi kunne være, med det vi virkelig er. Og manner, hvor er vi villige til at fylde det mellemrum i vores liv med løgn.
Deception is actually serious business. This con man, Henry Oberlander, he was such an effective con man, British authorities say he could have undermined the entire banking system of the Western world. And you can't find this guy on Google; you can't find him anywhere. He was interviewed once, and he said the following. He said, "Look, I've got one rule." And this was Henry's rule, he said, "Look, everyone is willing to give you something. They're ready to give you something for whatever it is they're hungry for." And that's the crux of it. If you don't want to be deceived, you have to know, what is it that you're hungry for? And we all kind of hate to admit it. We wish we were better husbands, better wives, smarter, more powerful, taller, richer -- the list goes on. Lying is an attempt to bridge that gap, to connect our wishes and our fantasies about who we wish we were, how we wish we could be, with what we're really like. And boy are we willing to fill in those gaps in our lives with lies.
På en given dag, viser undersøgelser at man bliver løjet for mellem 10 til 200 gange. Nu er mange af disse givetvis hvide løgne. Men i en anden undersøgelse, viste det at fremmede fortalte en løgn tre gange oftere inden for de 10 første minutter af at de mødte hinanden. (Latter) Når vi først hører denne data, føler vi noget modvilje. Vi kan ikke tro på, hvor udbredt det er at lyve. Vi er grundlæggende imod at lyve. Men hvis man ser nærmerede på det, bliver situationen mere indviklet. Vi lyver mere overfor fremmede, end vi lyver overfor kollegaer. Dem der er udadvendte lyver mere, end dem der er indadvendte. Mænd lyver otte gange mere om sig selv, end de gør om andre mennesker. Kvinder lyver mere for at beskytte andre mennesker. Hvis man er et gennemsnitligt gift par, vil man lyve overfor sin ægtefælle i en ud af 10 interaktioner. Nu tror I måske at det er slemt. Hvis man er ugift, falder det nummer til tre.
On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. (Laughter) Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now, you may think that's bad. If you're unmarried, that number drops to three.
Løgne er komplicerede. Det er vævet ind i det stof der er vores dagligdag og vores arbejdsliv. Vi er utrolig ambivalente omkring sandheden. Vi deler den ud i takt med at der er brug for den, nogle gange på grund af rigtig gode årsager, andre gange bare fordi vi ikke forstår hullerne i vores liv. Det er sandhed nummer to om det at lyve. Vi er imod det at lyve, men i det skjulte er vi for det, på måder som vores samfund har sanktioneret i århundreder og århundreder og århundreder. Det er så gammelt som at trække vejret. Det er en del af vores kultur, det er en del af vores historie. Tænk på Dante, Shakespeare, Biblen, News of the World.
Lying's complex. It's woven into the fabric of our daily and our business lives. We're deeply ambivalent about the truth. We parse it out on an as-needed basis, sometimes for very good reasons, other times just because we don't understand the gaps in our lives. That's truth number two about lying. We're against lying, but we're covertly for it in ways that our society has sanctioned for centuries and centuries and centuries. It's as old as breathing. It's part of our culture, it's part of our history. Think Dante, Shakespeare, the Bible, News of the World. (Laughter)
(Latter)
Lying has evolutionary value to us as a species.
Det at lyve har en evolutionær værdi for os som art. Forskere har i lang tid vidst, at jo mere intelligent arten er, jo større neokortex, jo større er sandsynligheden for at de er bedrageriske. Nu husker I måske Koko. Kan nogen huske gorilaen Koko, der blev lært tegnesprog? Koko blev lært at kommunikere ved hjælp af tegnesprog. Her er Koko med hendes killing. Det er hendes nuttede, bløde kæledyrskilling. Koko gav engang hendes killing skylden, for at rive køkkenvasken ud af væggen. (Latter) Vi er lavet til at blive flokkens leder. Det begynder virkelig, virkelig tidligt. Hvor tidligt? Jamen babyer simulerer gråd, pauser, venter og ser hvem der kommer og begynder så at græde igen. Etårige lærer hemmligholdelse. (Latter) Toårige lærer at bluffe. Femårige lyver decideret. De manipulerer via smiger. Niårige, mestre i at dække over noget. Til den tid at man begynder på universitetet, man vil lyve overfor sin mor i en ud af fem interaktioner. Til den tid at vi begynder på vores arbejdsliv og vi er forsørgere, går vi ind i en verden der bare er rodet med spam, falske digitale venner, ensidige medier, geniale identitets tyve, verdensklasse pyramidespillere, en bedrageriepidemi -- Kort sagt, det en forfatter kalder et post-sandhed samfund. Det har været meget forvirrende i meget lang tid nu.
Researchers have long known that the more intelligent the species, the larger the neocortex, the more likely it is to be deceptive. Now you might remember Koko. Does anybody remember Koko the gorilla who was taught sign language? Koko was taught to communicate via sign language. Here's Koko with her kitten. It's her cute little, fluffy pet kitten. Koko once blamed her pet kitten for ripping a sink out of the wall. (Laughter) We're hardwired to become leaders of the pack. It's starts really, really early. How early? Well babies will fake a cry, pause, wait to see who's coming and then go right back to crying. One-year-olds learn concealment. (Laughter) Two-year-olds bluff. Five-year-olds lie outright. They manipulate via flattery. Nine-year-olds, masters of the cover-up. By the time you enter college, you're going to lie to your mom in one out of every five interactions. By the time we enter this work world and we're breadwinners, we enter a world that is just cluttered with Spam, fake digital friends, partisan media, ingenious identity thieves, world-class Ponzi schemers, a deception epidemic -- in short, what one author calls a post-truth society. It's been very confusing for a long time now.
Hvad gør man? Jamen vi kan tage et par forholdsregler, for at navigere os gennem moradset. Dem der er trænede i at spotte løgne, finder frem til sandheden 90 procent af tiden. Resten af os, vi er kun 54 procent nøjagtige. Hvorfor er det så let at lære? Der er gode løgnere og dårlige løgnere. Der er ikke rigtig nogen originale løgnere. Vi begår alle de samme fejl. Vi bruger alle de samme teknikker. Så det jeg vil gøre, er at jeg vil vise jer to forskellige bedragsmønstre. Og så vil vi se på hotspots og se om vi kan finde os selv. Vi vil begynde med tale.
What do you do? Well, there are steps we can take to navigate our way through the morass. Trained liespotters get to the truth 90 percent of the time. The rest of us, we're only 54 percent accurate. Why is it so easy to learn? There are good liars and bad liars. There are no real original liars. We all make the same mistakes. We all use the same techniques. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to show you two patterns of deception. And then we're going to look at the hot spots and see if we can find them ourselves.
(Video) Bill Clinton: Jeg vil have at I lytter til mig. Jeg vil sige dette endnu en gang. Jeg havde ikke et seksuelt forhold til den kvinde, Miss Lewinsky. Jeg sagde ikke til nogen at de skulle lyve, ikke en eneste gang, aldrig. Og disse anklager er falske. Og jeg skal tilbage til mit arbejde for det amerikanske folk. Tak.
We're going to start with speech. (Video) Bill Clinton: I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. And these allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.
(Applause)
Pamela Meyer: Okay, hvad var de afslørende tegn? Jamen først hørte vi det der er kendt som en ikke-indskrænket benægtelse. Undersøgelser viser at mennesker der er ekstra bestemte i deres benægtelse, vil ty til formel i stedet for uformel sprogbrug. Vi hørte også afstandstagende sprog: "den kvinde." Vi ved at løgnere ubevidst vil distancere sig selv fra deres genstand, ved at bruge sproget som redskab. Hvis nu Bill Clinton havde sagt, "Jamen, for at sige sandheden …" eller Richard Nixons yndling, "Oprigtig talt …" ville det have været en åbenlys afsløring for en hvilken som helst person der spotter løgne og ved, at det kvalificerende sprogbrug, som det hedder, sådan et kvalificerende sprogbrug sår yderligere tvivl om personen. Hvis han nu havde gentaget hele spørgsmålet, eller hvis han havde krydret sin beretning med lidt for mange detaljer -- og vi er allesammen rigtig glade for at han ikke gjorde det -- ville han have sået yderligere tvivl om sig selv. Freud havde ret. Freud sagde, hør engang, der er meget mere ved det end sproget: "Ingen dødelig kan holde på en hemmelighed. Hvis hans læber er tavse, taler han med fingerspidserne." Og vi gør det allesammen, uanset hvor magtfuld man er. Vi sladrer alle med vores fingerspidser. Jeg vil vise jer Dominique Strauss-Kahn sammen med Obama, der sladrer med sine fingerspidser.
Pamela Meyer: Okay, what were the telltale signs? Well first we heard what's known as a non-contracted denial. Studies show that people who are overdetermined in their denial will resort to formal rather than informal language. We also heard distancing language: "that woman." We know that liars will unconsciously distance themselves from their subject, using language as their tool. Now if Bill Clinton had said, "Well, to tell you the truth ..." or Richard Nixon's favorite, "In all candor ..." he would have been a dead giveaway for any liespotter that knows that qualifying language, as it's called, qualifying language like that, further discredits the subject. Now if he had repeated the question in its entirety, or if he had peppered his account with a little too much detail -- and we're all really glad he didn't do that -- he would have further discredited himself. Freud had it right. Freud said, look, there's much more to it than speech: "No mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips." And we all do it no matter how powerful you are. We all chatter with our fingertips. I'm going to show you Dominique Strauss-Kahn with Obama who's chattering with his fingertips.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Nu bringer dette os videre til vores næste mønster, som er kropssprog. Med kropssprog, her er hvad man skal gøre. Man skal virkelig bare kaste sine antagelser ud af vinduet. Lad videnskaben dæmpe ens viden en lille smule. Fordi vi tror at løgnere er nervøse hele tiden. Men gæt engang, de er kendte for at holde deres overkrop helt stille når de lyver. Vi tror at løgnere ikke vil kigge en i øjnene. Men gæt engang, de kigger en lidt for meget i øjnene, bare for at kompensere for den myte. Vi tror at varme og smil kommunikerer ærlighed, oprigtighed. Men en der er trænet i at spotte løgne, kan spotte et falsk smil på en kilometers afstand. Kan I alle spotte et falsk smil? Man kan bevidst trække musklerne i ens kinder sammen. Men det rigtige smil er i øjnene, øjnenes kragetæer. De kan ikke trækkes sammen bevidst, specielt hvis man overdrev med Botox'en. Overdriv ikke med Botox'en; ingen vil tro at man er ærlig.
Now this brings us to our next pattern, which is body language. With body language, here's what you've got to do. You've really got to just throw your assumptions out the door. Let the science temper your knowledge a little bit. Because we think liars fidget all the time. Well guess what, they're known to freeze their upper bodies when they're lying. We think liars won't look you in the eyes. Well guess what, they look you in the eyes a little too much just to compensate for that myth. We think warmth and smiles convey honesty, sincerity. But a trained liespotter can spot a fake smile a mile away. Can you all spot the fake smile here? You can consciously contract the muscles in your cheeks. But the real smile's in the eyes, the crow's feet of the eyes. They cannot be consciously contracted, especially if you overdid the Botox. Don't overdo the Botox; nobody will think you're honest. Now we're going to look at the hot spots.
Nu vil vi kigge på hotspots. Kan I se hvad der sker i en samtale? Kan man begynde at finde hotspots, til at se uoverenstemmelserne mellem nogens ord og nogens handlinger? Nu ved jeg at det virker virkelig åbenlyst, men når man fører en samtale med nogen man mistænker for bedrag, er attitude uden tvivl den mest oversete, men afslørende, indikator.
Can you tell what's happening in a conversation? Can you start to find the hot spots to see the discrepancies between someone's words and someone's actions? Now, I know it seems really obvious, but when you're having a conversation with someone you suspect of deception, attitude is by far the most overlooked but telling of indicators.
En ærlig person er samarbejdsvillig. De viser at de er på ens side. De vil være entusiastiske. De vil være villige og behjælpelige med at få en frem til sandheden. De er villige til at brainstorme, navngive mistænkte, forsyne detaljer. De siger, "Hey, måske var det de fyre i lønningsafdelingen, der forfalskede de checks." De bliver rasende, hvis de føler de bliver falsk anklaget gennem hele interviewet, ikke kun i glimt; de vil være rasende gennem hele interviewet. Og hvis spørger nogen ærligt, om hvad der burde ske med hvem end der forfalskede de checks, er det meget mere sandsynligt, at en ærlig person anbefaler en hård straf over en mild straf.
An honest person is going to be cooperative. They're going to show they're on your side. They're going to be enthusiastic. They're going to be willing and helpful to getting you to the truth. They're going to be willing to brainstorm, name suspects, provide details. They're going to say, "Hey, maybe it was those guys in payroll that forged those checks." They're going to be infuriated if they sense they're wrongly accused throughout the entire course of the interview, not just in flashes; they'll be infuriated throughout the entire course of the interview. And if you ask someone honest what should happen to whomever did forge those checks, an honest person is much more likely to recommend strict rather than lenient punishment.
Lad os nu sige at man har den præcis samme samtale med en person der er bedragerisk. Den person vil være tilbagetrukket, kigger ned, sænker deres stemme, pauser, er uforudsigelige. Spørg en bedragerisk person om at fortælle deres historie, de kommer til at krydre den med alt for mange detaljer på alle mulige irrelevante steder. Og så vil de fortælle deres historie i en striks kronologisk rækkefølge. Og det en trænet forhører gør er at de kommer ind og på meget diskrete måder og i løbet af adskillige timer, vil de spørge den person om at fortælle historien baglæns, og så vil de se dem vride sig, og se hvilke spørgsmål der producerer den største mængde bedrageriske tegn. Hvorfor gør de det? Jamen vi gør alle den samme ting. Vi øver vores ord, men vi øver sjældent vores kropssprog. Vi siger, "ja," vi ryster hovedet "nej." Vi fortæller meget overbevisende historier, vi trækker let på skuldrene. Vi begår forfærdelige forbrydelser, og vi smiler af henrykkelsen over at slippe afsted med det. Nu er det smil i faget kendt som "narre henrykkelse."
Now let's say you're having that exact same conversation with someone deceptive. That person may be withdrawn, look down, lower their voice, pause, be kind of herky-jerky. Ask a deceptive person to tell their story, they're going to pepper it with way too much detail in all kinds of irrelevant places. And then they're going to tell their story in strict chronological order. And what a trained interrogator does is they come in and in very subtle ways over the course of several hours, they will ask that person to tell that story backwards, and then they'll watch them squirm, and track which questions produce the highest volume of deceptive tells. Why do they do that? Well, we all do the same thing. We rehearse our words, but we rarely rehearse our gestures. We say "yes," we shake our heads "no." We tell very convincing stories, we slightly shrug our shoulders. We commit terrible crimes, and we smile at the delight in getting away with it. Now, that smile is known in the trade as "duping delight."
Og vi kommer til at se det i adskillige flimklip, der bevæger sig fremad, men vi begynder -- for dem af jer der ikke kender ham, er dette den præsidentkandidaten John Edwards, som chokerede USA ved at være far til et barn uden for ægteskabet. Vi kommer til at se ham tale om at få en faderskabstest. Se om I nu kan spotte ham i at sige, "ja" men han ryster hovedet "nej," og trækker let på skuldrene.
And we're going to see that in several videos moving forward, but we're going to start -- for those of you who don't know him, this is presidential candidate John Edwards who shocked America by fathering a child out of wedlock. We're going to see him talk about getting a paternity test. See now if you can spot him saying, "yes" while shaking his head "no," slightly shrugging his shoulders.
(Video) John Edwards: Jeg vil glædeligt deltage i en. Jeg ved, at det ikke er muligt at dette barn kan være mit, på grund af tingenes timing. Så jeg ved det ikke er muligt. Jeg vil med glæde tage en faderskabstest, og jeg vil elske at se det ske. Interviewer: Vil du gøre det snart? Er der nogen -- JE: Jamen, jeg er kun den ene side. Jeg er kun den ene side af testen. Men jeg vil glædeligt deltage i en.
(Video) John Edwards: I'd be happy to participate in one. I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine, because of the timing of events. So I know it's not possible. Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen. Interviewer: Are you going to do that soon? Is there somebody -- JE: Well, I'm only one side. I'm only one side of the test. But I'm happy to participate in one.
PM: Okay, de ryst på hovedet er meget lettere at spotte når man ved, at man skal kigge efter dem. Der kommer til at være tidspunkter, når nogen laver et udtryk imens de dækker over et andet der på en måde lynhurtigt skinner igennem. Mordere er kendt for at lække vemod. Ens nye joint venture partner måske giver en hånden, fejrer, går ud og spiser med en og lækker så et udtryk af vrede. Og vi bliver ikke alle sammen eksperter i at kende ansigtsudtryk fra den ene dag til den anden, men der er et jeg kan lære jer der er meget farligt, og det er let at lære, og det er et udtryk af foragt. Med vrede har man to mennesker på lige vilkår. Det er stadig noget der ligner et sundt forhold. Men når vrede bliver til foragt, er man blevet afvist. Det er associeret med moralsk overlegenhed. Og af den årsag, er det meget, meget svært at komme sig over. Her er et eksempel på hvordan det ser ud. Det er markeret ved at det ene hjørne af læben er trukket op og ind. Det er det eneste asymmetriske udtryk. Og når foragt er tilstede, uanset om der kommer bedrag bagefter -- og det kommer ikke altid bagefter -- se den anden vej, gå den anden vej, revurder tilbuddet, sig, "Nej tak. Jeg kommer ikke op til en sidste godnatdrink. Tak."
PM: Okay, those head shakes are much easier to spot once you know to look for them. There are going to be times when someone makes one expression while masking another that just kind of leaks through in a flash. Murderers are known to leak sadness. Your new joint venture partner might shake your hand, celebrate, go out to dinner with you and then leak an expression of anger. And we're not all going to become facial expression experts overnight here, but there's one I can teach you that's very dangerous and it's easy to learn, and that's the expression of contempt. Now with anger, you've got two people on an even playing field. It's still somewhat of a healthy relationship. But when anger turns to contempt, you've been dismissed. It's associated with moral superiority. And for that reason, it's very, very hard to recover from. Here's what it looks like. It's marked by one lip corner pulled up and in. It's the only asymmetrical expression. And in the presence of contempt, whether or not deception follows -- and it doesn't always follow -- look the other way, go the other direction, reconsider the deal, say, "No thank you. I'm not coming up for just one more nightcap. Thank you."
Videnskab har påvist mange, mange flere indikatorer. Vi ved, for eksempel, vi ved løgnere vil ændre hyppigheden hvormed de blinker med øjnene, pege deres fødder mod en udgang. De vil bruge barriere objekter og sætte dem mellem sig selv om personen der interviewer dem. De vil ændre deres stemmeleje, ofte gøre deres stemmeleje meget lavere. Men her er hagen. Disse adfærd er bare adfærd. De er ikke bevis på bedrag. De er røde flag. Vi er mennesker. Vi laver alle bedrageriske, fægtende udtryk over det hele, hele dagen. De betyder ikke noget i sig selv. Men når man ser klynger af dem, er dét signalet. Se, lyt, snag, stil nogle svære spørgsmål, kom ud af den meget komfortable tilstand hvor man er sikker, begynd på den nysgerrige tilstand, stil flere spørgsmål, hav en smule værdighed, behandl den anden person med sympati. Prøv ikke på at være ligesom folkene på "Law & Order" og de andre TV serier, der tæver deres mistænkte til tilståelse. Vær ikke for aggresiv, det virker ikke.
Science has surfaced many, many more indicators. We know, for example, we know liars will shift their blink rate, point their feet towards an exit. They will take barrier objects and put them between themselves and the person that is interviewing them. They'll alter their vocal tone, often making their vocal tone much lower. Now here's the deal. These behaviors are just behaviors. They're not proof of deception. They're red flags. We're human beings. We make deceptive flailing gestures all over the place all day long. They don't mean anything in and of themselves. But when you see clusters of them, that's your signal. Look, listen, probe, ask some hard questions, get out of that very comfortable mode of knowing, walk into curiosity mode, ask more questions, have a little dignity, treat the person you're talking to with rapport. Don't try to be like those folks on "Law & Order" and those other TV shows that pummel their subjects into submission. Don't be too aggressive, it doesn't work.
Nu har vi talt en lille smule om, hvordan man taler til en der lyver og hvordan man spotter en løgn. Og som jeg lovede, vil vi nu kigge på hvordan sandheden ser ud. Men jeg vil vise jer to filmklip, to mødre -- den ene lyver, den anden siger sandheden. Og disse blev vist af forsker David Matsumoto i California. Og jeg synes de er et fremragende, på hvordan sandheden ser ud.
Now, we've talked a little bit about how to talk to someone who's lying and how to spot a lie. And as I promised, we're now going to look at what the truth looks like. But I'm going to show you two videos, two mothers -- one is lying, one is telling the truth. And these were surfaced by researcher David Matsumoto in California. And I think they're an excellent example of what the truth looks like. This mother, Diane Downs,
Denne moder, Diane Downs, skød hendes børn på klods hold, kørte dem til hospitalet imens de blødte i hele bilen, påstod en fremmed med dårligt hår gjorde det. Og når man ser filmklippet kan man se, at hun ikke kan lade som om hun er en plaget moder. Det man skal se efter her, er en utrolig uoverensstemmelse mellem de forfærdelige begivenheder som hun beskriver og hendes meget, meget kølige opførsel. Og hvis man ser nøje efter, kan man se deres fornøjelse igennem klippet.
shot her kids at close range, drove them to the hospital while they bled all over the car, claimed a scraggy-haired stranger did it. And you'll see when you see the video, she can't even pretend to be an agonizing mother. What you want to look for here is an incredible discrepancy between horrific events that she describes and her very, very cool demeanor. And if you look closely, you'll see duping delight throughout this video.
(Video) Diane Downs: Når jeg lukker øjnene om natten, kan jeg se Christie række sin hånd ud mod mig mens jeg kører, og blodet blev bare ved med at komme ud af hendes mund. Og at -- måske vil det også fortage sig med tiden -- men det tror jeg ikke. Det er det der nager mig mest.
(Video) Diane Downs: At night when I close my eyes, I can see Christie reaching her hand out to me while I'm driving, and the blood just kept coming out of her mouth. And that -- maybe it'll fade too with time -- but I don't think so. That bothers me the most.
PM: Nu vil jeg vise jer et filmklip af en moder der virkelig er sørgende, Erin Runnion, der konfronterer sin datters morder og torturbøddel i retten. Her kommer I ikke til at se nogen falske følelser, kun det autentiske udtryk af en moders pine.
PM: Now I'm going to show you a video of an actual grieving mother, Erin Runnion, confronting her daughter's murderer and torturer in court. Here you're going to see no false emotion, just the authentic expression of a mother's agony.
(Video) Erin Runnion: Jeg skrev denne udtalelse på den tredje årsdag for natten hvor du tog mit barn, og du gjorde hende fortræd, og du knuste hende, du gjorde hende skrækslagen indtil hendes hjerte stoppede. Og hun kæmpede, og jeg ved hun bekæmpede dig. Men jeg ved, at hun kiggede på dig med de fantastiske, brune øjne, og du ville stadig slå hende ihjel. Og jeg forstår det ikke, og det kommer jeg aldrig til.
(Video) Erin Runnion: I wrote this statement on the third anniversary of the night you took my baby, and you hurt her, and you crushed her, you terrified her until her heart stopped. And she fought, and I know she fought you. But I know she looked at you with those amazing brown eyes, and you still wanted to kill her. And I don't understand it, and I never will.
PM: Okay, der er ingen tvivl om sandfærdigheden i de følelser.
PM: Okay, there's no doubting the veracity of those emotions.
Nu er teknologien omkring hvordan sandheden ser ud fremadskridende, videnskaben bag det. Vi ved for eksempel, at vi nu har specialiserede øjne sporingsenheder og infrarøde hjernescannere, MRI der kan afkode signalerne som vores kroppe sender ud, når vi prøver at være bedrageriske. Og disse teknologier bliver markedsført til os alle som et universalmiddel mod bedrag, og en dag vil de vise sig at være utrolig nyttige. Men i mellemtiden skal man spørge sig selv: Hvem vil man have på sin side i et møde, en der er trænet i at finde frem til sandheden, eller en fyr der trækker et 200 kilo tungt elektroencefalogram gennem døren?
Now the technology around what the truth looks like is progressing on, the science of it. We know, for example, that we now have specialized eye trackers and infrared brain scans, MRI's that can decode the signals that our bodies send out when we're trying to be deceptive. And these technologies are going to be marketed to all of us as panaceas for deceit, and they will prove incredibly useful some day. But you've got to ask yourself in the meantime: Who do you want on your side of the meeting, someone who's trained in getting to the truth or some guy who's going to drag a 400-pound electroencephalogram through the door?
Dem der spotter løgne stoler på menneskelige værktøjer. De ved, som nogen engang sagde, "Karakter er den man er i mørket." Og det der er lidt interessant, er at vi i dag har så lidt mørke. Vores verden er oplyst 24 timer om dagen. Den er gennemskuelig med blogs og sociale netværk, der udsender en summen af en helt ny generation af mennesker, der har truffet det valg at de lever deres liv i offentligheden. Det er en meget mere støjende verden. Så en udfordring vi har, er at huske, at dele alt, det er ikke ærlighed. Vores maniske Twitter og sms-vaner kan gøre os blinde overfor det faktum, at de raffinerede detaljer af den menneskelige anstændighed -- karakterintegritet -- er stadig det det handler om, det er det det altid vil handle om. Så in denne meget mere støjende verden, giver det mening for os at være bare en lille smule mere tydelig om vores moral.
Liespotters rely on human tools. They know, as someone once said, "Character's who you are in the dark." And what's kind of interesting is that today, we have so little darkness. Our world is lit up 24 hours a day. It's transparent with blogs and social networks broadcasting the buzz of a whole new generation of people that have made a choice to live their lives in public. It's a much more noisy world. So one challenge we have is to remember, oversharing, that's not honesty. Our manic tweeting and texting can blind us to the fact that the subtleties of human decency -- character integrity -- that's still what matters, that's always what's going to matter. So in this much noisier world, it might make sense for us to be just a little bit more explicit about our moral code. When you combine the science of recognizing deception
Når man kombinerer videnskaben bag at genkende bedrag med kunsten af at se, lytte, fritager man sig selv for at deltage i en løgn. Man begynder med at være bare en lille smule mere tydelig, fordi man signalerer til alle omkring en, man siger, "Hey, min verden, vores verden, det kommer til at blive en ærlig en. Min verden kommer til at være en hvor sandheden er styrket og falskheden bliver genkendt og marginaliseret." Og når man gør det, begynder jorden omkring en at skifte bare en lille smule.
with the art of looking, listening, you exempt yourself from collaborating in a lie. You start up that path of being just a little bit more explicit, because you signal to everyone around you, you say, "Hey, my world, our world, it's going to be an honest one. My world is going to be one where truth is strengthened and falsehood is recognized and marginalized." And when you do that, the ground around you starts to shift just a little bit.
Og det er sandheden. Tak.
And that's the truth. Thank you.
(Bifald)
(Applause)