WEBVTT

00:00:09.205 --> 00:00:11.195
"Sorry, my phone died."

00:00:11.195 --> 00:00:13.494
"It's nothing. I'm fine."

00:00:13.494 --> 00:00:16.847
"These allegations 
are completely unfounded."

00:00:16.847 --> 00:00:20.799
"The company was not aware
of any wrongdoing."

00:00:20.799 --> 00:00:23.543
"I love you."

00:00:23.543 --> 00:00:26.656
We hear anywhere
from 10 to 200 lies a day,

00:00:26.656 --> 00:00:30.022
and we spent much of our history
coming up with ways to detect them,

00:00:30.022 --> 00:00:32.700
from medieval torture devices
to polygraphs,

00:00:32.700 --> 00:00:36.042
blood pressure and breathing monitors,
voice stress analyzers,

00:00:36.042 --> 00:00:38.725
eye trackers, infrared brain scanners,

00:00:38.725 --> 00:00:42.324
and even 
the 400-pound electroencephalogram.

00:00:42.324 --> 00:00:45.296
But although such tools have worked
under certain cirumstances,

00:00:45.296 --> 00:00:48.156
most can be fooled with
enough preparation,

00:00:48.156 --> 00:00:52.121
and none are considered reliable enough
to even be admissible in court.

00:00:52.121 --> 00:00:54.665
But what if the problem is not 
with the techniques,

00:00:54.665 --> 00:00:59.066
but the underlying assumption
that lying spurs physiological changes?

00:00:59.066 --> 00:01:01.071
What if we took a more direct approach,

00:01:01.071 --> 00:01:05.146
using communication science
to analyze the lies themselves?

00:01:05.146 --> 00:01:09.983
On a psychological level, we lie partly
to paint a better picture of ourselves,

00:01:09.983 --> 00:01:12.859
connecting our fantasies
to the person we wish we were

00:01:12.859 --> 00:01:15.317
rather than the person we are.

00:01:15.317 --> 00:01:19.569
But while our brain is busy dreaming,
it's letting plenty of signals slip by.

00:01:19.569 --> 00:01:23.728
Our conscious mind only controls 
about 5% of our cognitive function,

00:01:23.728 --> 00:01:25.288
including communication,

00:01:25.288 --> 00:01:28.931
while the other 95% occurs
beyond our awareness,

00:01:28.931 --> 00:01:31.874
and according to the literature
on reality monitoring,

00:01:31.874 --> 00:01:34.236
stories based on imagined experiences

00:01:34.236 --> 00:01:38.117
are qualitatively different
from those based on real experiences.

00:01:38.117 --> 00:01:42.143
This suggests that creating a false story
about a personal topic takes work

00:01:42.143 --> 00:01:45.226
and results in a different
pattern of language use.

00:01:45.226 --> 00:01:48.231
A technology 
known as linguistic text analysis

00:01:48.231 --> 00:01:50.955
has helped to identify
four such common patterns

00:01:50.955 --> 00:01:53.942
in the subconscious language of deception.

00:01:53.942 --> 00:01:58.497
First, liars reference themselves less,
when making deceptive statements.

00:01:58.497 --> 00:02:02.248
They write or talk more about others,
often using the third person

00:02:02.248 --> 00:02:05.509
to distance and disassociate
themselves from their lie,

00:02:05.509 --> 00:02:07.158
which sounds more false:

00:02:07.158 --> 00:02:09.990
"Absolutely no party took 
place at this house,"

00:02:09.990 --> 00:02:13.178
or "I didn't host a party here."

00:02:13.178 --> 00:02:15.757
Second, liars tend to be more negative,

00:02:15.757 --> 00:02:19.262
because on a subconscious level,
they feel guilty about lying.

00:02:19.262 --> 00:02:21.422
For example, a liar might say 
something like,

00:02:21.422 --> 00:02:25.613
"Sorry, my stupid phone battery 
died. I hate that thing."

00:02:25.613 --> 00:02:28.877
Third, liars typically explain 
events in simple terms

00:02:28.877 --> 00:02:32.155
since our brains struggle
to build a complex lie.

00:02:32.155 --> 00:02:33.329
Judgement and evaluation

00:02:33.329 --> 00:02:36.183
are complex things
for our brains to compute.

00:02:36.183 --> 00:02:38.678
As a U.S. President once 
famously insisted:

00:02:38.678 --> 00:02:41.790
"I did not have sexual relations
with that woman."

00:02:41.790 --> 00:02:44.683
And finally, even though liars 
keep descriptions simple,

00:02:44.683 --> 00:02:48.158
they tend to use longer 
and more convoluted sentence structure,

00:02:48.158 --> 00:02:49.764
inserting unnecessary words

00:02:49.764 --> 00:02:53.500
and irrelevant but factual 
sounding details in order to pad the lie.

00:02:53.500 --> 00:02:56.164
Another President confronted 
with a scandal proclaimed:

00:02:56.164 --> 00:02:59.534
"I can say, categorically, 
that this investigation indicates

00:02:59.534 --> 00:03:01.321
that no one on the White House staff,

00:03:01.321 --> 00:03:03.700
no one in this administration
presently employed

00:03:03.700 --> 00:03:06.919
was involved 
in this very bizarre incident."

00:03:06.919 --> 00:03:10.188
Let's apply linguistic analysis
to some famous examples.

00:03:10.188 --> 00:03:13.444
Take seven-time Tour de France
winner Lance Armstrong.

00:03:13.444 --> 00:03:15.397
When comparing a 2005 interview,

00:03:15.397 --> 00:03:18.274
in which he had denied taking
performance-enhancing drugs

00:03:18.274 --> 00:03:21.212
to a 2013 interview,
in which he admitted it,

00:03:21.212 --> 00:03:25.192
his use of personal pronouns
increased by nearly 3/4.

00:03:25.192 --> 00:03:27.859
Note the contrast 
between the following two quotes.

00:03:27.859 --> 00:03:32.170
First, "Okay, you know, a guy 
in a French, in a Parisian laboratory

00:03:32.170 --> 00:03:36.131
opens up your sample, you know,
Jean-Francis so-and-so, and he tests it.

00:03:36.131 --> 00:03:38.816
And then you get a phone call
from a newspaper that says:

00:03:38.816 --> 00:03:43.129
'We found you to be positive
six times for EPO."

00:03:43.129 --> 00:03:45.028
Second, "I lost myself in all of that.

00:03:45.028 --> 00:03:47.947
I'm sure there would be other people
that couldn't handle it,

00:03:47.947 --> 00:03:49.728
but I certainly couldn't handle it,

00:03:49.728 --> 00:03:52.750
and I was used to controlling 
everything in my life.

00:03:52.750 --> 00:03:55.412
I controlled every outcome in my life."

00:03:55.412 --> 00:03:58.318
In his denial, Armstrong described
a hypothetical situation

00:03:58.318 --> 00:04:00.321
focused on someone else,

00:04:00.321 --> 00:04:03.003
removing himself 
from the situation entirely.

00:04:03.003 --> 00:04:04.980
In his admission, he owns his statements,

00:04:04.980 --> 00:04:08.609
delving into his personal emotions 
and motivations.

00:04:08.609 --> 00:04:12.576
But the use of personal pronouns
is just one indicator of deception.

00:04:12.576 --> 00:04:14.909
Let's look at another example
from former Senator

00:04:14.909 --> 00:04:17.984
and U.S. Presidential candidate
John Edwards:

00:04:17.984 --> 00:04:20.662
"I only know that the apparent 
father has said publicly

00:04:20.662 --> 00:04:22.678
that he is the father of the baby.

00:04:22.678 --> 00:04:25.714
I also have not been engaged 
in any activity of any description

00:04:25.714 --> 00:04:29.172
that requested, agreed to, 
or supported payments of any kind

00:04:29.172 --> 00:04:32.377
to the woman 
or to the apparent father of the baby."

00:04:32.377 --> 00:04:36.420
Not only is that a pretty long-winded
way to say, "The baby isn't mine,"

00:04:36.420 --> 00:04:39.330
but Edwards never calls
the other parties by name,

00:04:39.330 --> 00:04:43.163
instead saying "that baby," "the woman,"
and "the apparent father."

00:04:43.163 --> 00:04:46.216
Now let's see what he had to say
when later admitting paternity:

00:04:46.216 --> 00:04:47.767
"I am Quinn's father.

00:04:47.767 --> 00:04:50.048
I will do everything 
in my power to provide her

00:04:50.048 --> 00:04:52.967
with the love and support she deserves."

00:04:52.967 --> 00:04:54.768
The statement is short and direct,

00:04:54.768 --> 00:04:58.327
calling the child by name 
and addressing his role in her life.

00:04:58.327 --> 00:05:01.558
So how can you apply these
lie-spotting techniques to your life?

00:05:01.558 --> 00:05:05.219
First, remember that many of the lies
we encounter on a daily basis

00:05:05.219 --> 00:05:09.844
are far less serious that these examples,
and may even be harmless.

00:05:09.844 --> 00:05:12.528
But it's still worthwhile 
to be aware of telltale clues,

00:05:12.528 --> 00:05:16.240
like minimal self-references,
negative language,

00:05:16.240 --> 00:05:19.518
simple explanations 
and convoluted phrasing.

00:05:19.518 --> 00:05:22.843
It just might help you avoid
an overvalued stock,

00:05:22.843 --> 00:05:26.333
an ineffective product,
or even a terrible relationship.