1
00:00:09,205 --> 00:00:11,195
"Sorry, my phone died."

2
00:00:11,195 --> 00:00:13,494
"It's nothing. I'm fine."

3
00:00:13,494 --> 00:00:16,847
"These allegations 
are completely unfounded."

4
00:00:16,847 --> 00:00:20,799
"The company was not aware
of any wrongdoing."

5
00:00:20,799 --> 00:00:23,543
"I love you."

6
00:00:23,543 --> 00:00:26,656
We hear anywhere
from 10 to 200 lies a day,

7
00:00:26,656 --> 00:00:30,022
and we spent much of our history
coming up with ways to detect them,

8
00:00:30,022 --> 00:00:32,700
from medieval torture devices
to polygraphs,

9
00:00:32,700 --> 00:00:36,042
blood pressure and breathing monitors,
voice stress analyzers,

10
00:00:36,042 --> 00:00:38,725
eye trackers, infrared brain scanners,

11
00:00:38,725 --> 00:00:42,324
and even 
the 400-pound electroencephalogram.

12
00:00:42,324 --> 00:00:45,296
But although such tools have worked
under certain cirumstances,

13
00:00:45,296 --> 00:00:48,156
most can be fooled with
enough preparation,

14
00:00:48,156 --> 00:00:52,121
and none are considered reliable enough
to even be admissible in court.

15
00:00:52,121 --> 00:00:54,665
But what if the problem is not 
with the techniques,

16
00:00:54,665 --> 00:00:59,066
but the underlying assumption
that lying spurs physiological changes?

17
00:00:59,066 --> 00:01:01,071
What if we took a more direct approach,

18
00:01:01,071 --> 00:01:05,146
using communication science
to analyze the lies themselves?

19
00:01:05,146 --> 00:01:09,983
On a psychological level, we lie partly
to paint a better picture of ourselves,

20
00:01:09,983 --> 00:01:12,859
connecting our fantasies
to the person we wish we were

21
00:01:12,859 --> 00:01:15,317
rather than the person we are.

22
00:01:15,317 --> 00:01:19,569
But while our brain is busy dreaming,
it's letting plenty of signals slip by.

23
00:01:19,569 --> 00:01:23,728
Our conscious mind only controls 
about 5% of our cognitive function,

24
00:01:23,728 --> 00:01:25,288
including communication,

25
00:01:25,288 --> 00:01:28,931
while the other 95% occurs
beyond our awareness,

26
00:01:28,931 --> 00:01:31,874
and according to the literature
on reality monitoring,

27
00:01:31,874 --> 00:01:34,236
stories based on imagined experiences

28
00:01:34,236 --> 00:01:38,117
are qualitatively different
from those based on real experiences.

29
00:01:38,117 --> 00:01:42,143
This suggests that creating a false story
about a personal topic takes work

30
00:01:42,143 --> 00:01:45,226
and results in a different
pattern of language use.

31
00:01:45,226 --> 00:01:48,231
A technology 
known as linguistic text analysis

32
00:01:48,231 --> 00:01:50,955
has helped to identify
four such common patterns

33
00:01:50,955 --> 00:01:53,942
in the subconscious language of deception.

34
00:01:53,942 --> 00:01:58,497
First, liars reference themselves less,
when making deceptive statements.

35
00:01:58,497 --> 00:02:02,248
They write or talk more about others,
often using the third person

36
00:02:02,248 --> 00:02:05,509
to distance and disassociate
themselves from their lie,

37
00:02:05,509 --> 00:02:07,158
which sounds more false:

38
00:02:07,158 --> 00:02:09,990
"Absolutely no party took 
place at this house,"

39
00:02:09,990 --> 00:02:13,178
or "I didn't host a party here."

40
00:02:13,178 --> 00:02:15,757
Second, liars tend to be more negative,

41
00:02:15,757 --> 00:02:19,262
because on a subconscious level,
they feel guilty about lying.

42
00:02:19,262 --> 00:02:21,422
For example, a liar might say 
something like,

43
00:02:21,422 --> 00:02:25,613
"Sorry, my stupid phone battery 
died. I hate that thing."

44
00:02:25,613 --> 00:02:28,877
Third, liars typically explain 
events in simple terms

45
00:02:28,877 --> 00:02:32,155
since our brains struggle
to build a complex lie.

46
00:02:32,155 --> 00:02:33,329
Judgement and evaluation

47
00:02:33,329 --> 00:02:36,183
are complex things
for our brains to compute.

48
00:02:36,183 --> 00:02:38,678
As a U.S. President once 
famously insisted:

49
00:02:38,678 --> 00:02:41,790
"I did not have sexual relations
with that woman."

50
00:02:41,790 --> 00:02:44,683
And finally, even though liars 
keep descriptions simple,

51
00:02:44,683 --> 00:02:48,158
they tend to use longer 
and more convoluted sentence structure,

52
00:02:48,158 --> 00:02:49,764
inserting unnecessary words

53
00:02:49,764 --> 00:02:53,500
and irrelevant but factual 
sounding details in order to pad the lie.

54
00:02:53,500 --> 00:02:56,164
Another President confronted 
with a scandal proclaimed:

55
00:02:56,164 --> 00:02:59,534
"I can say, categorically, 
that this investigation indicates

56
00:02:59,534 --> 00:03:01,321
that no one on the White House staff,

57
00:03:01,321 --> 00:03:03,700
no one in this administration
presently employed

58
00:03:03,700 --> 00:03:06,919
was involved 
in this very bizarre incident."

59
00:03:06,919 --> 00:03:10,188
Let's apply linguistic analysis
to some famous examples.

60
00:03:10,188 --> 00:03:13,444
Take seven-time Tour de France
winner Lance Armstrong.

61
00:03:13,444 --> 00:03:15,397
When comparing a 2005 interview,

62
00:03:15,397 --> 00:03:18,274
in which he had denied taking
performance-enhancing drugs

63
00:03:18,274 --> 00:03:21,212
to a 2013 interview,
in which he admitted it,

64
00:03:21,212 --> 00:03:25,192
his use of personal pronouns
increased by nearly 3/4.

65
00:03:25,192 --> 00:03:27,859
Note the contrast 
between the following two quotes.

66
00:03:27,859 --> 00:03:32,170
First, "Okay, you know, a guy 
in a French, in a Parisian laboratory

67
00:03:32,170 --> 00:03:36,131
opens up your sample, you know,
Jean-Francis so-and-so, and he tests it.

68
00:03:36,131 --> 00:03:38,816
And then you get a phone call
from a newspaper that says:

69
00:03:38,816 --> 00:03:43,129
'We found you to be positive
six times for EPO."

70
00:03:43,129 --> 00:03:45,028
Second, "I lost myself in all of that.

71
00:03:45,028 --> 00:03:47,947
I'm sure there would be other people
that couldn't handle it,

72
00:03:47,947 --> 00:03:49,728
but I certainly couldn't handle it,

73
00:03:49,728 --> 00:03:52,750
and I was used to controlling 
everything in my life.

74
00:03:52,750 --> 00:03:55,412
I controlled every outcome in my life."

75
00:03:55,412 --> 00:03:58,318
In his denial, Armstrong described
a hypothetical situation

76
00:03:58,318 --> 00:04:00,321
focused on someone else,

77
00:04:00,321 --> 00:04:03,003
removing himself 
from the situation entirely.

78
00:04:03,003 --> 00:04:04,980
In his admission, he owns his statements,

79
00:04:04,980 --> 00:04:08,609
delving into his personal emotions 
and motivations.

80
00:04:08,609 --> 00:04:12,576
But the use of personal pronouns
is just one indicator of deception.

81
00:04:12,576 --> 00:04:14,909
Let's look at another example
from former Senator

82
00:04:14,909 --> 00:04:17,984
and U.S. Presidential candidate
John Edwards:

83
00:04:17,984 --> 00:04:20,662
"I only know that the apparent 
father has said publicly

84
00:04:20,662 --> 00:04:22,678
that he is the father of the baby.

85
00:04:22,678 --> 00:04:25,714
I also have not been engaged 
in any activity of any description

86
00:04:25,714 --> 00:04:29,172
that requested, agreed to, 
or supported payments of any kind

87
00:04:29,172 --> 00:04:32,377
to the woman 
or to the apparent father of the baby."

88
00:04:32,377 --> 00:04:36,420
Not only is that a pretty long-winded
way to say, "The baby isn't mine,"

89
00:04:36,420 --> 00:04:39,330
but Edwards never calls
the other parties by name,

90
00:04:39,330 --> 00:04:43,163
instead saying "that baby," "the woman,"
and "the apparent father."

91
00:04:43,163 --> 00:04:46,216
Now let's see what he had to say
when later admitting paternity:

92
00:04:46,216 --> 00:04:47,767
"I am Quinn's father.

93
00:04:47,767 --> 00:04:50,048
I will do everything 
in my power to provide her

94
00:04:50,048 --> 00:04:52,967
with the love and support she deserves."

95
00:04:52,967 --> 00:04:54,768
The statement is short and direct,

96
00:04:54,768 --> 00:04:58,327
calling the child by name 
and addressing his role in her life.

97
00:04:58,327 --> 00:05:01,558
So how can you apply these
lie-spotting techniques to your life?

98
00:05:01,558 --> 00:05:05,219
First, remember that many of the lies
we encounter on a daily basis

99
00:05:05,219 --> 00:05:09,844
are far less serious that these examples,
and may even be harmless.

100
00:05:09,844 --> 00:05:12,528
But it's still worthwhile 
to be aware of telltale clues,

101
00:05:12,528 --> 00:05:16,240
like minimal self-references,
negative language,

102
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:19,518
simple explanations 
and convoluted phrasing.

103
00:05:19,518 --> 00:05:22,843
It just might help you avoid
an overvalued stock,

104
00:05:22,843 --> 00:05:26,333
an ineffective product,
or even a terrible relationship.