0:09 → 0:12
SpeakerSorry, my phone died. It's nothing.
0:12 → 0:16
SpeakerI'm fine. These allegations are completely unfounded.
0:17 → 0:20
SpeakerThe company was not aware of any wrongdoing.
0:21 → 0:22
SpeakerI love you.
0:23 → 0:26
SpeakerWe hear anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day,
0:26 → 0:29
Speakerand we spent much of our history coming up the ways to detect them,
0:30 → 0:32
Speakerfrom medieval torture devices to polygraphs,
0:33 → 0:34
Speakerblood pressure and breathing monitors,
0:34 → 0:36
Speakervoice stress analyzers,
0:36 → 0:39
Speakereye trackers, infrared brain scanners,
0:39 → 0:42
Speakerand even the 400 LB electroencephalogram.
0:42 → 0:45
SpeakerBut although such tools have worked under certain circumstances,
0:45 → 0:48
Speakermost can be fooled with enough preparation,
0:48 → 0:51
Speakerand none are considered reliable enough to even be admissible in court.
0:52 → 0:54
SpeakerBut what if the problem is not with the techniques,
0:54 → 0:58
Speakerbut the underlying assumption that lying spurs physiological changes?
0:59 → 1:01
SpeakerWhat if we took a more direct approach,
1:01 → 1:04
Speakerusing communication science to analyze the lies themselves?
1:05 → 1:09
SpeakerOn a psychological level, we lie partly to paint a better picture of ourselves,
1:10 → 1:14
Speakerconnecting our fantasies to the person we wish we were rather than the person we are.
1:15 → 1:17
SpeakerBut while our brain is busy dreaming,
1:17 → 1:19
Speakerit's letting plenty of signals slip by.
1:19 → 1:23
SpeakerOur conscious mind only controls about 5% of our cognitive function,
1:23 → 1:28
Speakerincluding communication, while the other 95% occurs beyond our awareness.
1:29 → 1:31
SpeakerAnd according to the literature on reality monitoring,
1:32 → 1:37
Speakerstories based on imagined experiences are qualitatively different from those based on real experiences.
1:38 → 1:44
SpeakerThis suggests that creating a false story about a personal topic takes work and results in a different pattern of language use.
1:45 → 1:53
SpeakerA technology known as linguistic text analysis has helped to identify four such common patterns in the subconscious language of deception.
1:54 → 1:58
SpeakerFirst, liars reference themselves less when making deceptive statements.
1:58 → 2:00
SpeakerThey write or talk more about others,
2:01 → 2:05
Speakeroften using the third person to distance and disassociate themselves from their lie.
2:05 → 2:12
SpeakerWhich sounds more false? Absolutely no party took place at this house or I didn't host a party here.
2:13 → 2:19
SpeakerSecond, liars tend to be more negative because on a subconscious level they feel guilty about lying.
2:19 → 2:21
SpeakerFor example, a liar might say something like,
2:22 → 2:24
Speakersorry, my stupid phone battery died.
2:24 → 2:26
SpeakerI hate that thing. Third,
2:26 → 2:29
Speakerliars typically explain events in simple terms.
2:29 → 2:31
SpeakerSince our brains struggle to build a complex lie,
2:32 → 2:36
Speakerjudgement and evaluation are complex things for our brains to compute.
2:36 → 2:38
SpeakerAs AUS president once famously insisted,
2:39 → 2:41
SpeakerI did not have **** relations with that woman.
2:42 → 2:44
SpeakerAnd finally, even though liars keep descriptions simple,
2:45 → 2:48
Speakerthey tend to use longer and more convoluted sentence structure,
2:48 → 2:53
Speakerinserting unnecessary words and irrelevant but factual sounding details in order to pad the lie.
2:53 → 2:55
SpeakerAnother president, confronted with a scandal,
2:55 → 3:01
Speakerproclaimed. I can say categorically that this investigation indicates that no one on the White House staff,
3:01 → 3:04
Speakerno one in this administration presently employed,
3:04 → 3:06
Speakerwas involved in this very bizarre incident.
3:07 → 3:10
SpeakerLet's apply linguistic analysis to some famous examples.
3:10 → 3:13
SpeakerTake seven time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.
3:13 → 3:21
SpeakerWhen comparing a 2005 interview in which he had denied taking performance enhancing drugs to a 2013 interview in which he admitted it,
3:21 → 3:25
Speakerhis use of personal pronouns increased by nearly 3/4.
3:25 → 3:27
SpeakerNote the contrast between the following two quotes.
3:28 → 3:33
SpeakerFirst, OK, you know a guy in a French in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample.
3:33 → 3:41
SpeakerYou know, Jean Francis so and so and he tests it and then you get a phone call from a newspaper that says we found you to be +6 times for EPO.
3:43 → 3:45
SpeakerSecond, I lost myself in all of that.
3:45 → 3:48
SpeakerI'm sure there would be other people that couldn't handle it,
3:48 → 3:49
Speakerbut I certainly couldn't handle it.
3:50 → 3:52
SpeakerAnd I was used to controlling everything in my life.
3:52 → 3:55
SpeakerI controlled every outcome in my life.
3:55 → 4:02
SpeakerIn his denial, Armstrong described a hypothetical situation focused on someone else removing himself from the situation entirely.
4:03 → 4:08
SpeakerIn his admission, he owns his statements delving into his personal emotions and motivations.
4:08 → 4:12
SpeakerBut the use of personal pronouns is just one indicator of deception.
4:12 → 4:15
SpeakerLet's look at another example from former senator and U.S.
4:15 → 4:17
Speakerpresidential candidate John Edwards.
4:18 → 4:22
SpeakerI only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby.
4:22 → 4:27
SpeakerI also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested,
4:27 → 4:32
Speakeragreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.
4:32 → 4:36
SpeakerNot only is that a pretty long winded way to say the baby isn't mine,
4:36 → 4:39
Speakerbut Edwards never calls the other parties by name,
4:39 → 4:41
Speakerinstead saying that baby,
4:41 → 4:43
Speakerthe woman and the apparent father.
4:43 → 4:46
SpeakerNow let's see what he had to say when later admitting paternity.
4:46 → 4:52
SpeakerI am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves.
4:53 → 4:57
SpeakerThe statement is short and direct, calling the child by name and addressing his role in her life.
4:58 → 5:01
SpeakerSo how can you apply these lie spotting techniques to your life?
5:01 → 5:09
SpeakerFirst, remember that many of the lies we encounter on a daily basis are far less serious than these examples and may even be harmless.
5:09 → 5:14
SpeakerBut it's still worthwhile to be aware of telltale clues like minimal self references,
5:15 → 5:17
Speakernegative language, simple explanations,
5:17 → 5:19
Speakerand convoluted phrasing.
5:20 → 5:22
SpeakerIt just might help you avoid an overvalued stock,
5:23 → 5:26
Speakeran ineffective product, or even a terrible relationship.